future Puppy

[oui]

Hi

I was enthusiast reading in Distrowatch an announcement about a new Puppy parent a few days ago.

It seems to be one of those needing an own dedicated partition

I did loose a lot of good work in such dedicated partitions. why? you can of course create and fill 2, 3 .. 5 or more dedicated partitions but nothing help you to manage the data build using the OS and app's of the partition. you don't use it intensively but end using it a little quantity of top works being hidden in the not transparent hierarchy of Linux (/home/I or /root, that is the question). a lot of weeks later, you clean the hard disk and erase the partition... including all content!

for this reason, I never will any more some OS, Linux or other possible OS, dedicating (in subdir) hidden management of data.

in my opinion is Puppy a volatile form of Linux: You need no hardware or hardware dependent organisation: Puppy has to be in RAM and only there. Only in poor PCs it can be that Puppy works as system with overlays searching them on an harddisk or some external mass drive...

slacko did always cause screen problems (ovals instead rounds)

the three most optimized Puppy's were:

- Quirky (I am a quirky fan since the creation of the line!)
- DebianDog
- LazY Unicorn 32 bit

sorry but there is no LazY 64 bit at all... this excludes LazY in the future from 64 bit territory

DebianDog is perfect and extremely economic: only fill your root dir with dotsquashfs files and it grows fully automatic (in LazY, you have to complete divers utilities needing to work correctly, no problem, but it can occupy you for nothing: only that it works...

Quirky without conventional ISO to be used without to install? Is that the solution?

[oui]

The remasterdog works absolutely perfectly...

the Lazy remaster routine also but only to one squash format. but you can predefine a lot of interesting parameters. It is also very good for this reason.

both are important for people adapting her Puppy's for the exact environment used on there hardware and data resources.

with perfect remaster solution, you don't need to let your data on the system used to produce them but can better manage them globally on your system (i have only one freeDOS -, one separate reactOS - partition and SWAP. All data are in an extended, but in it they are only 2 partitions: a extremely small CHROOT and all the rest is my MAIN named BIG as big is shorter to write, more than 700 Gbyte. All data are now in that /big in dir named /big/ym (for my ).

I find that organization more modern as I have so only one depository for private and informations data in only one central place and can add some full installed Linux in the hierarchy as the name of "my" did be changed into "ym", the reversed form (the frugal installations are named 0somewhat1 and are also outside the hierarchy, before the traditional Linux dir's, as well as link for "1images", "1links", "1urls" etc. So I can erase the tested Linux with one only one marking from "bin" to "var"and be certain don't to erase some important data! I don't need more that this only one giant dir for all!

other organisation are, in my eyes, poor antic forms...

[oui]

debiandog finds the main partition (my big), but names it at starting time automatic

/mnt/home

I can create remastered ISOs or dotsquashfs with

inks independent from the individual partition range

of /mnt.home (in my case /mnt/dev6 as dev5 is my chroot and dev4 my swap. dev3 is my extended. the natural organisation of my harddisk was uefi but I did convert it using puppy to dos...)

this is a very modern stage of os architecture; the ability of standardised management of the main partition

it would have to be available in each really good puppy: it is a kind of k.o. condition!

of course, an ubuntu16.04dog based on for quirky stripped T2 binaries would probably be really better as with simple Debian packages (DebianDog also uses an separate depository for the one package: DebianDog64 can easily be reduced to an only very small squashfs (I never create some ISOs as I never have more as only one full installation on the HD and always use some frugal starts... I is really the best and have never some unpleasant surprises!) with sizes under 160 MB as kind of one-bone!) as 16.04 is, like Jessie, also a long term but a bit younger and a bit more progressive (Debian, I am sorry, is today to prudent at the integration of new software versions... You have to wait to long to increase your system to the wishing level...)

[oui]

for all those reasons, I propose to discuss on the possibly ideal architecture of future puppy's!

some ideas in that matter?

[bigpup]

Puppy can be installed any possible way you can think of now.
I think the install option is up to you.
That is the way I like it.
You decide how to install.

That is Linux. It is up to you, not some other person.

Quirky is not an official Puppy.
It is Barry K. testing new ideas and ways of doing things.

[oui]

Hi bigpup

Thank you very much for the indication: I did know that very well! I was one of the 100 first Puppyists, see my adhesion date to that forum, and one of the first and most enthusiast user of Quirky and did publish a lot of years Quirky'lets remastered on the initial one as the file system did be changed a few time after it's creation and no compatibility was given any more... I don't know if you remember that?

No, my question is more:

The Puppy "world" knows now divers solutions to manage optimal the own home computer, more the own home network and perhaps some "small enterprise" as well for common user as for some handicaped persons...

as the global computer world does not stay on the "same place" all the time years along the versions become old and older and become progressive in-operable. to avoid that, it would be necessary to actualize a

base

containing the actual standard or the actual standardS !

it was the fuction of Woof, all the Woof's.

as also Woof knows a real fracture, Barry did note it itself yesterday, we are very far from that ideal as no automatic connect the divers Woof's together (see pleadoyer for Woof from Iguleder in his magisterial separate discussion on Woof! but see also the critics harvesting after that on the very low user friendliness of WoofC, managed like an hermit outside from this forum fully separately (i know, i know, it is a great computer site out a time where the software world was wider, a kind of cemetery of good ideas ).

kind regards


PS: did also you note that distrowatch is being slowly (yet an influence of Standardizations efforts of Google for an unified Google-ware on all PC's independently of the hardware base? An Google hegemony like in the IBM hegemony of IBM in the years after 1980 ...)?

[jlst]

Good ideas

[greengeek]

it was the fuction of Woof, all the Woof's.
as also Woof knows a real fracture, Barry did note it itself yesterday, we are very far from that ideal as no automatic connect the divers Woof's together

Is it the function of woof to unite all pups? I thought it was the opposite - to allow "puppification" of packages from different distros? Surely they will never be identical. Otherwise - what would be the point?

The Puppy "world" knows now divers solutions to manage optimal the own home computer, more the own home network and perhaps some "small enterprise" as well for common user as for some handicaped persons...

as the global computer world does not stay on the "same place" all the time years along the versions become old and older and become progressive in-operable. to avoid that, it would be necessary to actualize a base containing the actual standard or the actual standardS !

I like the idea of using Puppy to strengthen "standards". How ironic it would be if a tiny distro - which must have many more variants than every other distro combined - could be used as a method for spreading standards.

I would like to see people find ways to agree on standards for the basic stuff like spreadsheets and documents - I think if you asked a group of puppians which software suite they used you would get a bunch of different answers. Why? Why is gnumeric no longer any good as a spreadsheet standard? Why is docx so variable from suite to suite? Why don't we use odf? If we can't find standards for the basic stuff how can we ever agree on standards for a whole puppy?

If we are prepared to turn our backs on microsoft shouldnt we also make the effort to turn our backs on file formats that continue to creep away from standards?

As an example I would love to see Puppy focus on encouraging the international adoption of PDF/A. How can we make standards standard?? There must be a way for people to come to agreement.
.

[Sailor Enceladus]

I think Puppy is it's own (fun) thing. Promoting standards sounds boring! I also hate the word business.

[nic007]

I will keep on using Puppy as long as it can be frugally installed and does not need its own exclusive partition.

[jlst]

The way things work is with a vision, a religious community ready to follow orders like sheep, and a benevolent dictator with many skillz.

I guess the main goal of woof was to avoid compiling, the base distro being used as a repository... clever.

But then, they forgot about sinchronizing pups at the very basic level, this can be done very easily, very very easily, but requires everyone to follow rules to make all puppies compliant at the basic level. People stick to old versions, people make their derivatives... everyone do as they please, all that effort could go direcly to pet repos or woof, but there is no way to achieve this sort of order without completely destroying the Puppy mindset.

I also do as I please, but I keep all my stuff for me, and when i try to contribute something, i try to make it directly into woof.

[greengeek]

I also do as I please, but I keep all my stuff for me, and when i try to contribute something, i try to make it directly into woof.

This is where I get confused about woof. If individuals change the contents of woof how can there be standards? Isn't that what woof-ce is for? - an ever-changing target,

By contrast woof itself should change only once a year or once every two years - otherwise how can there ever be standards?

[jlst]

yes

[bigpup]

As I understand it. Woof (the build system) is not Puppy anymore. It is Barry K's build system.
He is out doing his own thing and has nothing to do with Puppy.
His words.

Puppy is now run and controlled as a community project.
Woof-CE (build system) is used to build Puppy.
There is a loosely organized group of developers that control what goes into Woof-CE.
I think 01micko is now considered the lead developer of Puppy or Master Steward of Puppy Linux.

Latest info is here:
Puppy Linux team
http://puppylinux.com/team.html