simpler file layout

Using applications, configuring, problems
Message
Author
User avatar
miriam
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed 06 Dec 2006, 23:46
Location: Queensland, Australia
Contact:

simpler file layout

#1 Post by miriam »

Hi folks. I've been lurking for quite a long time. Over some years I've been trying many different Linux variants in the quest to find a suitable one to invest my time and effort into. I think with Puppy I have found that one.

A big problem with all Linuxes is that the file tree is a total mess. Trying to find things, if you don't already know where they are, can be a real nightmare. Binary files (executable programs) can be scattered over sometimes a dozen "bin" folders and can actually end up almost anywhere. Shell scripts and configuration files are an even worse mess with, as far as I can see, very little rhyme or reason as to their placement. Each programmer, it seems, has his or her own idea of where stuff should go. The only thing everybody seems to agree on is not to follow the standard (with good reason as the standard is frankly insane http://www.linuxsa.org.au/meetings/1997 ... sstnd.html ).

None of this matters if everything operates properly and you never need to fix anything by hand. But it never goes that way. Trying to track down the important parts of a Linux system when it fails to operate properly can end up costing you the best part of a day. It shouldn't be like this. And it never used to be.

Not very long ago file trees were much simpler. MSWindows is a fragile piece of spyware crap, but it does have a sensible, rational file structure that lets you find stuff quickly and easily. The Amiga computer has the simplest, easiest to use file tree of any modern computer. OS-9 (the small computer Unix clone not the Mac OS) had an incredibly simple file tree. Such a layout would make Puppy sooo much more friendly.

- a folder for executables
- a folder for scripts
- a folder for libraries, device drivers, and codecs
- a folder for configuration files and logs
- a folder for links to startup files
- a folder for data
- a folder for temporary files

No special folder for mounted devices. They're auto-mounted at the top level, though should be able to be selectively unmounted any time.

A special folder is not needed for each user, though they would quite likely want to create one. User distinction and file protection is provided perfectly well by the permission bits. Most Puppy machines are single-user. Forcing an elaborate structure on them is overkill.

What do you think?
[color=blue]A life! Cool! Where can I download one of those from?[/color]

oli
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed 30 Aug 2006, 09:04
Location: Germany, Frankfurt

#2 Post by oli »

Welcome to Puppy :D .

In my opinion it is not as simple as you think to establish a new file-tree as standard for Puppy. One example: if I make a dotpup of a Debian program, the program needs specific files in specific directories. If the program should run with a not-standard file-tree, you have to change the source code (am I right?). This would mean a lot of work without advantage.

User avatar
debernardis
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat 12 Nov 2005, 08:01
Contact:

#3 Post by debernardis »

You might be interested in Gobolinux with its double filesystem structure which allows both tte historical tree and another, maybe tidier, organization.

GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#4 Post by GuestToo »

If the program should run with a not-standard file-tree, you have to change the source code (am I right?)
it depends ... sometimes an application will run as long as the executables and library files are placed in dirs that are in PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH ... but many applications require their files to be located where they are expected to be, as it was set when the source was compiled ... so yes, often precompiled binary files must be placed in certain standard locations

yes, the Linux file system is more complicated and complex than it needs to be for a simple standalone desktop, but Linux is based on Unix, and Unix traces it's roots back to the 1960's and Bell Labs ... which means there is a lot of legacy stuff in Unix and derivatives of Linux ... for example, many Unix systems ran on mainframes, perhaps in a university setting, and had hundreds or thousands of users on a time sharing system, as well as hundreds of servers, and also the administrator ... it was a good idea to keep the administrator system separate from the rest of the rabble

if you use Puppy as a standalone personal desktop, usually you are the admin, and a lot of the complexity that makes sense on the time sharing main frame is really no longer necessary ... it's still there mostly for legacy reasons

total mess ... real nightmare ... scattered ... little rhyme or reason ... the standard is frankly insane

yes, i agree, the Linux file system is unnecessarily complicated and fragmented ... i don't think insane is too strong a word
incredibly simple file tree
i like simplicity
A special folder is not needed for each user
a folder for each user would probably be desirable and necessary so that each user would have her/his own mail, internet bookmarks, wallpaper, desktop icons, choice of window manager, etc etc etc
User distinction and file protection is provided perfectly well by the permission bits
the standard Linux file permissions are probably adequate, but a more powerful permissions system like Selinux could be used ... the trouble with permissions systems, is it can be tricky to get the permissions right, and it is also very easy to accidentally set up the permissions with a security hole
Most Puppy machines are single-user. Forcing an elaborate structure on them is overkill
yes, i agree

the trouble is, a Linux operating system is a support structure for applications ... and the applications are mostly designed to work with other standard Linux operating systems ... so Puppy has to be able to support applications and libraries that were made to work with the standard Linux file system

i assume you have heard of GoboLinux ... it is a Linux operating system that has addressed this issue ... they have a simple file system, in which each application is contained in one folder ... executables, libraries, documentation, configuration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux
http://www.gobolinux.org/

i like simplicity of Gobo's file system, and the packaging systems, and the simple boot scripts

they have dealt with the need for the legacy file system structure by adding symlinks for /bin, /sbin, /etc, /usr, etc etc etc, and hiding the legacy symlinks ... they are still there, for example, if you are looking for /etc/fstab, and don't know where it is in the simplifed Gobo file system, you can just open /etc/fstab in a text editor, and it will work ... this helps make Gobo with the legacy, standard file structure

C is a programming language with all the disadvantages of a high-level language combined with all the disadvantages of a low level language, with an awkward syntax and a design that makes it very very difficult to write even a simple program without the potential for buffer overuns which because the buffers are automatically place on the subroutine return stack, is a security risk ... but it has one advantage ... it is ubiquitous, almost everyone uses C or C++ ... so C is often used, because C is often used

similarly, most people use Windows, not because it is a really well designed operating system, but most people use Windows because most people use Windows

unless Barry gets Gobo religion, or someone decides to make a Gobo style Puppy, or unless someone decides to fork a Puppy style Gobo, i think Puppy will continue to use the standard Linux file system

pity ... i like simplicity ... in many of my dotpup packages, i put all the files in the package in one roxapp folder ... executables, libraries, documentation, icon ... it makes it simple to make and simple to install and simple to uninstall and simple to use

oh, and welcome to Puppy

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

ost

#5 Post by Gn2 »

Sorry - majority of Linux users would disagree about "Messy" or unstructured, ( above expressed) file system views.

FSH/LSB sets out standards for placement of all.
Variations arise due to non-conforming distributions.

Only variables should be optional paths chosen for /usr - /usr/local executables & customised /var & /opt folders.
If that were not true - no executable would ever start, unless the user pre-defined full path and environment profile for /root and ~/user_name

Once familiar to Linux heirarchy standards - it will become 2nd nature where to manually search - ESP. if "slocate" was included !
a security risk
There is always a modicum of risk attached to use of other's code - beit C or any language !
It always boils down to hasty, ill-considered coding practices-
One way to avert most risk > use a stack-protection kernel patch
Linux was built on Gcc for kernel, Bash as default CLI - Perl/Python &widgets most else.
GUI environment needs upper languages and G++

All derived from 'Nix propreitary O/Systems which absolutely Req'd a rigorous server/client permission
file system interfacing to API/ABI kernel interupt requests.

.
Last edited by Gn2 on Thu 07 Dec 2006, 15:52, edited 1 time in total.

GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#6 Post by GuestToo »

i do agree that the standard Linux file system is unnecessarily complex for a simple standalone desktop, and i think that standards have disadvantages as well as advantages ... adherence to standards is often an excuse to avoid change, and prevent doing things in ways that might be truly better

maybe there are still people who are unhappy because CP-M is no longer the standard operating system for micro computers (as opposed to mainframes and minicomputers)

the advantage of having a standard plug and socket and a standard voltage and line frequency, is that you can just plug your hair dryer in any electric socket and it will work

the disadvantage is that the standard electric socket may not be as good as the standard plug and socket that another country might use ... when you stick with standard ways of doing things, you are also stuck with the standard, whether the standard is good and useful and practical or not

and Puppy is not your standard Linux distro

i think there is more than one slocate package ... here is mine: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?&t=13004

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#7 Post by Gn2 »

adherence to standards is often an excuse to avoid change, and prevent doing things in ways that might be truly better
There is change for a valid purpose vs change because any may seem "inconvenient" to the user.

I can transplant a Detroit Diesel or CAT engine - where the original "standard" was a Cummins -
Not without extensive modifications to the frame.... plus then requiring alternate wiring harnesses, electrical sub-systems.

All variants would run on N/A roads or in UK - but NOT on same side of road or having lane width allotment to frame width conventions.
The driver's "view" would also would seem very "inconvenient" to any unaccustomed to standards
that were pre-condtions of pre-defined road "standards" of the individual country.
None of which makes any more sense to any pre-set O/System standards then does I.E. electrical frequency or plug sockets to wall outlets ?

In end - nothing stopping any who wish - alter anything that enhances own use .
Unlike national laws/standards that must be enforced for public safety

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#8 Post by marksouth2000 »

GuestToo wrote:[the Linux file system is unnecessarily complicated and fragmented ... i don't think insane is too strong a word
Well, "insane" implies irrational, and yet there is a rational reason for every piece of the file hierarchy. So insane is not a very good description at all.

The simplest and most obvious reason is interoperability. Linux uses the full set of POSIX structures so as to interoperate with POSIX systems and be able to use software written for, e.g., BSD systems.

And the fact that a telephone is not a multiuser system does not mean that it's a good idea to fork an incompatible version of Linux for phones. Linux is the best-scaling operating system in history. Whereas AmigaOS and Plan9 are just history.

To put it another way, when one sees something has been built by other people that one doesn't understand, one can adopt either of two approaches:

A. I shall try to understand why that is the way it is and how to make the best use of it.

B. I have no clue why they did that. Glad I'm not as dumb as that.

The latter is a popular choice, and recommended highly for its ratio of reward to effort.

User avatar
miriam
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed 06 Dec 2006, 23:46
Location: Queensland, Australia
Contact:

#9 Post by miriam »

Linux is the best-scaling operating system in history.
It is nice to be enthusiastic, but that isn't quite right. There are plenty of other operating systems that scale brilliantly -- as well as, and sometimes better than, Linux.
Whereas AmigaOS and Plan9 are just history.
Operating systems fall out of popularity for various reasons that are not necessarily related to how well they work. Dismissing something by saying that it is history is a good way to ensure that we will never learn anything from history. (Incidentally I was talking about OS-9, though Plan9 is another interesting system.)
To put it another way, when one sees something has been built by other people that one doesn't understand, one can adopt either of two approaches:

A. I shall try to understand why that is the way it is and how to make the best use of it.

B. I have no clue why they did that. Glad I'm not as dumb as that.

The latter is a popular choice, and recommended highly for its ratio of reward to effort.
Actually there are a lot of ways to respond to something that one doesn't understand. One is to ridicule it.

Come on Mark. I've read a lot of your posts. (I'm a long-time lurker.) You are a smart guy. Don't let yourself down with a defensive reaction like that. Linux is just a tool. No matter how well a tool works it can almost always be improved. It is what we humans do best.

You can't tell me you've never spent hours fossicking around in Linux's file tree trying to work out where the hell some damn configuration file is hiding.
Last edited by miriam on Thu 07 Dec 2006, 17:51, edited 1 time in total.
[color=blue]A life! Cool! Where can I download one of those from?[/color]

User avatar
miriam
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed 06 Dec 2006, 23:46
Location: Queensland, Australia
Contact:

#10 Post by miriam »

(Darn, I just noticed this one didn't post.)
yes, the Linux file system is more complicated and complex than it needs to be for a simple standalone desktop, but Linux is based on Unix, and Unix traces it's roots back to the 1960's and Bell Labs ... which means there is a lot of legacy stuff in Unix and derivatives of Linux
True, but Linux's file tree seems to be quite a bit more disorganised and scattered than Unix's.
...more powerful permissions system like Selinux could be used...
I hadn't heard of Selinux. More research I need to do. :) Thanks.
i assume you have heard of GoboLinux ... it is a Linux operating system that has addressed this issue ... they have a simple file system, in which each application is contained in one folder ... executables, libraries, documentation, configuration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux
http://www.gobolinux.org/
Wow! Thanks Debernardis and GuestToo. I hadn't heard of GoboLinux. I have just now had a quick read of some of the literature about it. It sounds very much like what was thinking, though taking it in a slightly different, and I gotta say, rather ingenious direction.

I'm going to read more about it and see if some of its lessons can be applied to Puppy.
oh, and welcome to Puppy
:) Thanks
[color=blue]A life! Cool! Where can I download one of those from?[/color]

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#11 Post by Flash »

I wish I had more time to join in this discussion. I couldn't agree more with miriam that the Linux filesystem is practically insane. For sure there is nothing user-friendly about it, nor any apparent desire to make it so. There is so little obvious rhyme or reason to it that even developers can't agree on where to put things. Theye make the situation even worse by creating their own ad-hoc solutions.

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#12 Post by marksouth2000 »

It's good news for Puppy that practically everyone who visits the forum has a clearer idea of how a filesystem should work than Ken Thomson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds put together. Cool! :D

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#13 Post by Gn2 »

Hmmm ... If Linux FSH seems unnecessarily convoluted or out of step to own needs - alter to suit own working requirements.
It is NOT recommended as a good idea - to hastily employ SEL without much prior considerations ?.

= If any think Linux default system permissions are hard to decipher now - SEL will -:wink: Guaranteed .... vastly increase your vocabulary !

There is very much interest and all sorts of splinter groups trying to promulgate "own" solutions - if any were supperior-
Present standards would soon change
All has nothing to do with any (expert maintainer's) own vision of any Status Quo
vs - Everything to do with full Posix compliance.
I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
Ashleigh Brilliant
NTIM > To me - that equates to

Code: Select all

 It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem. 
Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them. 
 Albert Einstein (1879-1955) 
In end - Linux enables all to alter to suit -IF time/efforts necessary
may indicate any alterations will enhance own usage.

= Rotsa_ruck to fighting default pre-supplied dependencies of
added_in Apps/utilities
Noone will be able to aid you sort any self-inflicted glitches out

GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#14 Post by GuestToo »

majority of Linux users would disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
FSH/LSB sets out standards for placement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Once familiar to Linux heirarchy standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
when one sees something has been built by other people that one doesn't understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It's good news for Puppy that practically everyone who visits the forum has a clearer idea of how a filesystem should work than Ken Thomson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds put together
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
If any think Linux default system permissions are hard to decipher now - SEL will -Wink Guaranteed .... vastly increase your vocabulary !
agreed ... it took Fedora Core a number of releases before they resolved the Selinux configuration problems
Posix compliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX

"Fully POSIX-compliant
These are officially certified as POSIX compatible, they conform to it fully.

# NT kernel (used in Windows NT, 2000, 2003; XP, Vista)"

the POSIX specifications do not seem to require an unnecessarily complex file system in which the components of an application are separated and placed in various locations throughout the file system ... this seems to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#15 Post by Gn2 »

:wink:

Code: Select all

It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
if any were supperior- Present standards would soon change
~ In end - Linux enables all to alter to suit -IF time/efforts necessary
may indicate any alterations will enhance own usage.
To each his own - I may not agree, but will defend anyone's right to express own convictions - less they be hate mongering
such as I.E.
Some self -interest only "Politicos' use to divide - & promote to E.G. own ends.....
Sans deference to (swarn oathes) to never harm those they took office to serve.

But that's also just another inequity of: :lol:
Seems to be more've > "It ain't so much the fools - perhaps the lightening just ain't distributed right by the almighty ....to best affect". ?

BTW Wiki is Icky = Contents are Websites' personal conceptions vs .......

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#16 Post by Lobster »

:)

Is it a question of search and indexing?
I tend to save files in the programs default.

If you know what file (aprox) you are searching for and you wish to search/index then this could be simplified. MU I believe created a simplified search.

I can not remember my own web sites URL, so key words in Google work just as well . . .

Does an improved search/index offer a potential solution?
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#17 Post by Pizzasgood »

Eh? What's confusing? The program will either be in (or have a symlink in) /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/X11R7/bin, /usr/local/share/apps, or, in the case of Puppy, /root/my-applications/bin or /root/my-roxapps.
Libraries in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /usr/X11R7/lib, .......

Hmmm.... which <program-name> is very very useful, that's for sure.

I've never worked with a big multi-user system, so I can't comment on that. For Puppy though, it seems rather redundant. I can understand having /bin and /usr/bin separate, but /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin? Unnecessary. Not much can be done about it though, other than standardizing on one and using it whenever possible. The other would still exist, but it wouldn't have much in it. Or would it be possible to move everything from /usr/local/bin into /usr/bin, then remove /usr/local/bin and make it a symlink to /usr/bin? If so, we could do that with many of the duplicates and just use a single place.

The idea of splitting up packages and mashing them all together is also annoying to me. On the other hand, it makes sense because of the whole 'path' thing. I still don't like it. I'm more of a fan of sticking everything in it's own folder within /usr/local/share, then symlinking the binaries and libraries to /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/lib. That way it's in the path, but it's also all togeather. Plus, if something else with the same name tries to go into /sr/

I also like using Rox-Apps whenever possible. I actually made a Rox-App of Firefox once. Rox-Filer itself is a Rox-App. They're easy to make, automatically get the icon assigned to them (which they contain), can usually be moved anywhere, and you can even set up right-click menus without any hassle. You can't just type their names into the terminal to run them though, because they aren't in the path.

I definitely agree with GuestToo about simplicity. For example, XFCE is a very nice WM, but it almost never survives more than a month of my use. IceWM, on the other hand, has almost never had any problems unless I was specifically targeting it. It's also more simple.

I don't see a very good way to simplify the filesystem and maintain compatibility though, short of extremely liberal use of symlinks. That could cause problems too, though.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#18 Post by Gn2 »

Slocate + all present built-in aids -

Find - whereis - ldd - ld - ls -ll - grep ......
= Work within - or remain on outside looking in ?
It ain' t so much th' arrow - It's :wink: :lol: the Enjin

GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#19 Post by GuestToo »

You can't just type their names into the terminal to run them though, because they aren't in the path
actually, you can ... there is a patch for Bash that lets you run any roxapp that is in a dir in the PATH, just by typing the name of the roxapp (the name of the rox appdir) ... it works in Puppy, i tried it a long time ago, when Puppy did not have Bash, only Busybox's ash ... i was one of the few who had bash as my standard shell

of course, there's nothing to stop you from putting a wrapper script or a symlink in the PATH ... in fact, many of my roxapps automatically update a symlink in my-applications/bin every time the roxapp is clicked ... in case the roxapp is moved to another dir ... most of my roxapps can be moved to any directory ... many of them can be run from the CLI

incidentally, the Apple os makes use of application directories too ... a result of influence of NextStep, i think

i don't like XFCE ... i don't know why exactly, i like the idea of modularity, but XFCE is a wm i don't enjoy using ... I like Icewm, but i wish i could switch desktops by rolling the mouse wheel, like Fluxbox or JWM or even KDE
I don't see a very good way to simplify the filesystem and maintain compatibility though, short of extremely liberal use of symlinks
that seem to be exactly what Gobo does ... it has a simplified file system (i especially like their simplifed boot scripts), and it has some hidden symlinks for the legacy file system ... for example, ls / would not show /etc, but if you want to edit fstab, and you don't remember where it is, you can type leafpad /etc/fstab, and it will work (assuming you have leafpad installed ... i would)

unfortunately, i don't think it would be practical to simplify Puppy's file system, for compatibilty reasons ... as Gobo Linux has demonstrated, it can be done, but i don't think anyone is willing to do the work necessary to make a simplified Puppy ... i think i would like a GoboPup

incidentally, if anyone wants to try Gobo, it is a live cd that can be installed to the hard drive, like Knoppix ... and it uses unionfs too, now, so the file system is writable

another live cd that is interesting is the L4 kernel demo ... http://demo.tudos.org/
the L4 kernel is a micro kernel, with most of the kernels functions working as modules in user space as opposed to Linus Torvald's monolithic kernel in which much of the functionality is performed by the kernel in kernel space ... some of the L4 demos of security features and abilities to easily manage multiple processes are interesting ... the Hurd kernel is a microkernel ... i suspect it would have been better if the Linux kernel had been designed as a microkernel from the beginning

i think we are all saying the same thing ... something like:

"the complicated Linux file structure is a necessary evil"

but i think what Gn2 may be saying is (i do not want to put words in his mouth):

"the complicated Linux file structure is a necessary evil"

while i am saying:

"the complicated Linux file structure is a necessary evil"

by the way, i find the where script that comes with the Bash source (i think) to be useful at times ... http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?&t=10469

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#20 Post by Gn2 »

Of what use is there to label it as "Evil" ?
Why run the risk of (inadvertantly?) sounding as if there were any malicious intent or insistence of - "Do it this way - or else" ?

> Like it or lump it - we all have the freedom of choice:
Work within the supplied tools .... or change to use own preferences ?

There is NOTHING stopping us.... unlike many "other" O/System frustrations we often encounter !

When any suspect a fuction is not availabe yet exists, use

Code: Select all

env
To confirm - then alter as-supplied defaults to fit.

This seems to be a non-issue - why continue to berate something that we can alter -
= Focus on own needs, not what is perceived as an inherent legacy which has no alternatives ?

Sort of the whole point of even using an OSS platform .

Anything breaks - you get to keep the pieces, to sort through & ponder your "improvements"
Were they in fact, actually wiser or comparable to the groundwork of those who
> have a proven track record of knowing Linux ...... far more clearly than non-maintainers can ever hope to achieve ?

= Learn to walk before second -guessing a proven Olympics marathoner of Linux expertise.

Which will never be me & NTIM > I doubt like hell will be found within present Puppy Ranks.
Puppy was not any new invention - eveything is always built on hardwork & talents of others.... long before
any came along & started to "improve" the Linux O/System design philosophies.

Barry K showed us all the way, came up with great new innovations -
= Do as you please (he imposed no impractical restrictions AFAICS ?

Post Reply