Linux directory structure
https://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/09/li ... structure/
Directory is the Linux name for a folder and it works just like a folder in Windows.
Flash drive Puppy settings didn't take
-
RetroTechGuy
- Posts: 2947
- Joined: Tue 15 Dec 2009, 17:20
- Location: USA
I've only briefly played with Xenial so far -- looks like you have lots of boot options. You can probably move your preferred to the top of the list, and it will appear first.bushrat wrote:@RTG
my syslinux.cfg looks like this:
[...]
label xenialpup64-nokms
linux vmlinuz
initrd initrd.gz
append pfix=ram,nox pmedia=cd
menu label For machines with severe video problems
text help
Start xenialpup64 without savefile, without KMS, and run xorgwizard
to choose video resolutions before starting graphical desktop.
endtext
so, there's lots of xenialpup instructions - one of which does have 'pfix=fsck' so which other ones do I add your instruction to?
thanks
So onto your question, you should be able to add to any/all append lines with:
Code: Select all
append pfix=ram,nox pmedia=cd pfix=fsck
)Put that fsck command on the end of the append lines that you want to scan the save file. Actually, just do one first - then make sure it boots. Once you have a working choice, then you can mess with the others (I always make a backup copy of the file first)
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=58615]Add swapfile[/url]
[url=http://wellminded.net63.net/]WellMinded Search[/url]
[url=http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html]PuppyLinux.US Search[/url]
[url=http://wellminded.net63.net/]WellMinded Search[/url]
[url=http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html]PuppyLinux.US Search[/url]
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
That I'll agree with.s243a wrote:It depends on what software you have on your windows machine:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/
A couple of years after swearing off Windoze for ever, dopy Mike went & re-installed XP, didn't he??
The brainstorm/aberration only lasted a few months, but during that time I, too, installed 'ext2fsd'. Okay, so you still couldn't actually read the Linux stuff (especially in Pup's case
), but I'll give the software its due; you could mount Linux partitions, and map each partition to a Windoze drive letter for subsequent access.In that respect, it worked very well for its intended purpose. All that was really needed in those days was a reverse-version of WINE, allowing one to natively run Linux apps in Windoze.....
(And before any bright spark turns round and says 'Oh, you can do that now', please remember this was XP we were talking about....not Win10.)
Mike.
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
@ bushrat:-
I understand the desire to get your head around the file system. It is, in a way, rather like my personal method whenever I've moved house in the past; over the first few weeks/months, I like to drive/walk around all over the immediate neighbourhood.....and basically, 'get my bearings'.
There is a massive amount of documentation available for the Linux system, but it's not 'included' (as standard) with each and every distro in the same way that Windoze is. You have to understand, with Windows, the individual is dealing with a corporation. You pay for the software; along with this payment, you get 'rights'.....such as entitlement to help with problems. And you get so that you expect this 'help' as your god-given right....because you've paid for it. It is, if you like, a 'contract' of sorts with MyCrudSoft.
With the GNU/Linux family of operating systems, it's a totally different story. No one individual company 'owns' the copyright to Linux. The kernel is produced by kernel.org (headed, of course, by Linux Torvalds), and made available for general public release, totally free of charge.
GNU was originally intended to be a complete, free operating system, produced by the Free Software Foundation (FSF; you'll hear a lot about these), headed by the indefatigable Richard Stallman.....dating all the way back to 1983. They had one major problem; their own kernel (called 'Hurd') never was finished. They did, however, produce all the other 1001 bits & pieces that go to make up an OS. When Torvalds built the first kernel, it was seen as the 'missing' link; it was put together with all the GNU 'utilities', and 'Linux' was born.
There's been decades-worth of arguments ever since as to whether it should be called GNU/Linux or just Linux..!
The whole Linux 'ethos' has always been community-based; forums where people can ask for help, exchange thoughts, ideas, and anything else you can think of. It may seem strange to many, but it's neither better, nor worse, than its Windoze equivalent; it's just a different approach.
I myself have had so much genuine help from this wonderful bunch of irrepressible 'reprobates' ( ), that I honestly have no problem trying to give back whatever I can to the community. They're worth it. Remember, too, that the regulars here on the forum are just the tip of the iceberg; there's a sizeable 'silent majority' who, while they don't directly contribute to the community, nevertheless still regularly follow the Forum and all the links therefrom...
I think there's a lot more 'Puppy' users out there than anybody would even try to hazard a guess at!
-------------------------------------------------
It seems you've just had a run of bad luck with your Puppy 'journey' so far. We've all gone through spells where things just don't behave themselves.....but when it happens right from day one, it tends to flavour the whole experience, and paint it in a rather negative light. I hope you'll persevere; when it's all set-up and working the way it should, you'll have an amazing wee system you can carry anywhere with you, which runs at lightning speed, and which you can make sit up, beg, run around, dance.....anything you want it to, really. Because you're the one in control.....not some faceless corporation, who thinks they know better than you how you want to use your computer, and to whom 'their way' is the 'only way'.
Here's a couple of things you may find interesting. One is an overview of the basic Linux file-system, and the other is a semi-humorous look at the different approaches taken by Windoze and Linux:-
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/htm ... t_03_01_03
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Hope they're of some small use.
Mike.
I understand the desire to get your head around the file system. It is, in a way, rather like my personal method whenever I've moved house in the past; over the first few weeks/months, I like to drive/walk around all over the immediate neighbourhood.....and basically, 'get my bearings'.
There is a massive amount of documentation available for the Linux system, but it's not 'included' (as standard) with each and every distro in the same way that Windoze is. You have to understand, with Windows, the individual is dealing with a corporation. You pay for the software; along with this payment, you get 'rights'.....such as entitlement to help with problems. And you get so that you expect this 'help' as your god-given right....because you've paid for it. It is, if you like, a 'contract' of sorts with MyCrudSoft.
With the GNU/Linux family of operating systems, it's a totally different story. No one individual company 'owns' the copyright to Linux. The kernel is produced by kernel.org (headed, of course, by Linux Torvalds), and made available for general public release, totally free of charge.
GNU was originally intended to be a complete, free operating system, produced by the Free Software Foundation (FSF; you'll hear a lot about these), headed by the indefatigable Richard Stallman.....dating all the way back to 1983. They had one major problem; their own kernel (called 'Hurd') never was finished. They did, however, produce all the other 1001 bits & pieces that go to make up an OS. When Torvalds built the first kernel, it was seen as the 'missing' link; it was put together with all the GNU 'utilities', and 'Linux' was born.
There's been decades-worth of arguments ever since as to whether it should be called GNU/Linux or just Linux..!
The whole Linux 'ethos' has always been community-based; forums where people can ask for help, exchange thoughts, ideas, and anything else you can think of. It may seem strange to many, but it's neither better, nor worse, than its Windoze equivalent; it's just a different approach.
I myself have had so much genuine help from this wonderful bunch of irrepressible 'reprobates' (
), that I honestly have no problem trying to give back whatever I can to the community. They're worth it. Remember, too, that the regulars here on the forum are just the tip of the iceberg; there's a sizeable 'silent majority' who, while they don't directly contribute to the community, nevertheless still regularly follow the Forum and all the links therefrom...I think there's a lot more 'Puppy' users out there than anybody would even try to hazard a guess at!
-------------------------------------------------
It seems you've just had a run of bad luck with your Puppy 'journey' so far. We've all gone through spells where things just don't behave themselves.....but when it happens right from day one, it tends to flavour the whole experience, and paint it in a rather negative light. I hope you'll persevere; when it's all set-up and working the way it should, you'll have an amazing wee system you can carry anywhere with you, which runs at lightning speed, and which you can make sit up, beg, run around, dance.....anything you want it to, really. Because you're the one in control.....not some faceless corporation, who thinks they know better than you how you want to use your computer, and to whom 'their way' is the 'only way'.
Here's a couple of things you may find interesting. One is an overview of the basic Linux file-system, and the other is a semi-humorous look at the different approaches taken by Windoze and Linux:-
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/htm ... t_03_01_03
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Hope they're of some small use.
Mike.
Bushrat - a couple of these posters have mentioned the high likelihood that your problems were caused by the time taken to complete the writes to the USB stick during shutdown.
If you continue to boot from USB here are some things you should consider doing:
1) Before you shut down open a terminal and manually type the following:
sync
This will trigger RAM contents to be written FULLY to the save file. Do this before shutdown and you will eliminate one of the main causes of usb stick corruptions of the savefile.
2) Learn how fast each usb stick is capable of writing. There is HUGE difference between brands. Also huge differences between different sticks of the same brand. I copy a 100MB iso file to a stick and evaluate exactly how long it took to complete. (Must use "sync" command to find the actual end-time of the writing. Don't just rely on when the copy dialog closes - it lies!)
3) Work out which of your usb ports is fastest. In many cases a PC will have some usb ports that are faster than others. Sometimes this is because the manufacturer has used usb 1.1 on some ports and usb 2 on others. (or usb2 on some and usb3 on others). Sometimes it is because rear facing mobo mounted usb ports come from a different manufacturer than side or front facing usb ports so Puppy loads different drivers to each.
Whatever the reason - try to have the usb stick containing your savefile plugged into the fastest port.
Use hardinfo and lsmod or "lsusb -v" to work out which port uses which driver module if you can. Some use EHCI driver, others don't.
Puppy (or any OS for that matter) can set a usb bus to a lower speed (or use a slower driver) than it is technically capable of for a variety of reasons. Find the fastest port.
4) Consider finding ways to eliminate the savefile altogether. You can change the savefile to an sfs (readonly) and this avoids shutdown write delays completely.
If you continue to boot from USB here are some things you should consider doing:
1) Before you shut down open a terminal and manually type the following:
sync
This will trigger RAM contents to be written FULLY to the save file. Do this before shutdown and you will eliminate one of the main causes of usb stick corruptions of the savefile.
2) Learn how fast each usb stick is capable of writing. There is HUGE difference between brands. Also huge differences between different sticks of the same brand. I copy a 100MB iso file to a stick and evaluate exactly how long it took to complete. (Must use "sync" command to find the actual end-time of the writing. Don't just rely on when the copy dialog closes - it lies!)
3) Work out which of your usb ports is fastest. In many cases a PC will have some usb ports that are faster than others. Sometimes this is because the manufacturer has used usb 1.1 on some ports and usb 2 on others. (or usb2 on some and usb3 on others). Sometimes it is because rear facing mobo mounted usb ports come from a different manufacturer than side or front facing usb ports so Puppy loads different drivers to each.
Whatever the reason - try to have the usb stick containing your savefile plugged into the fastest port.
Use hardinfo and lsmod or "lsusb -v" to work out which port uses which driver module if you can. Some use EHCI driver, others don't.
Puppy (or any OS for that matter) can set a usb bus to a lower speed (or use a slower driver) than it is technically capable of for a variety of reasons. Find the fastest port.
4) Consider finding ways to eliminate the savefile altogether. You can change the savefile to an sfs (readonly) and this avoids shutdown write delays completely.
@bigpup
that reference you provided: https://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/09/li ... structure/ is one of the best examples of what Puppy users, coming from Windows or any other system, need to understand to be able to confidently use the file system.
I bet many Puppy users, even of long standing, use /usr /bin and all the rest not knowing exactly what those files are intended to be doing, but since they've managed to get their Puppy working for them don't enquire too much further. Bad thinking IMO. Once the light has clicked on in your head about the general structure it clears up so many questions - and in truth the explanation is not rocket science just a simple de-mystification.
I reckon I could make a lot of money taking bets on how many Puppy users think 'usr' means 'user' (and sometimes it does)... You can see by the many comments following that reference how much of that type of explanatory stuff is needed. Ironically, it is often there somewhere but so much Puppy information isn't easily searchable - typing in a search topic once got me 500+ pages of references but looking for my needle in that haystack just wasn't feasible. I understand why things have developed that way just a shame the truly fundamental stuff isn't in one place?
When the day comes that I have a good understanding of Puppy I'm gonna do a long write up on what I think newcomers need as a starting point with no asumptions about anything. A handful of step-by-step guides on why things are the way they are and a few elementary "How-to's" would do the trick. There are already a few how-to's which start off the right way for beginners but then suddenly say stuff like "you need to compile xyz.." then set "pfdisk=HTse" (just made up) and that drops the beginner in the brown stuff right off the bat. Hard isn't it?
This is not a whinge about Puppy or its posters - both are excellent - but it remains difficult for newcomers to Linux systems get their head around the basics with no basic roadmap.
that reference you provided: https://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/09/li ... structure/ is one of the best examples of what Puppy users, coming from Windows or any other system, need to understand to be able to confidently use the file system.
I bet many Puppy users, even of long standing, use /usr /bin and all the rest not knowing exactly what those files are intended to be doing, but since they've managed to get their Puppy working for them don't enquire too much further. Bad thinking IMO. Once the light has clicked on in your head about the general structure it clears up so many questions - and in truth the explanation is not rocket science just a simple de-mystification.
I reckon I could make a lot of money taking bets on how many Puppy users think 'usr' means 'user' (and sometimes it does)... You can see by the many comments following that reference how much of that type of explanatory stuff is needed. Ironically, it is often there somewhere but so much Puppy information isn't easily searchable - typing in a search topic once got me 500+ pages of references but looking for my needle in that haystack just wasn't feasible. I understand why things have developed that way just a shame the truly fundamental stuff isn't in one place?
When the day comes that I have a good understanding of Puppy I'm gonna do a long write up on what I think newcomers need as a starting point with no asumptions about anything. A handful of step-by-step guides on why things are the way they are and a few elementary "How-to's" would do the trick. There are already a few how-to's which start off the right way for beginners but then suddenly say stuff like "you need to compile xyz.." then set "pfdisk=HTse" (just made up) and that drops the beginner in the brown stuff right off the bat. Hard isn't it?
This is not a whinge about Puppy or its posters - both are excellent - but it remains difficult for newcomers to Linux systems get their head around the basics with no basic roadmap.
If you could do that, based on a new users view of Puppy, that would be great.
There are usually 6 or more ways to do about anything in Puppy.
Giving a new user the simple, easy way, needs some input from a very new user.
Great way to give back to Puppy.
This was the original FAQ page for Puppy, controlled by the original Puppy developer, Barry K.
http://bkhome.org/archive/puppylinux/faq.htm
When he stopped controlling Puppy development and turned it all over to the Puppy community.
It got archived because he shutdown his active Puppy web pages.
Still some useful info in it, even if it is a little old and not updated to the newest Puppies.
There are usually 6 or more ways to do about anything in Puppy.
Giving a new user the simple, easy way, needs some input from a very new user.
Great way to give back to Puppy.
This was the original FAQ page for Puppy, controlled by the original Puppy developer, Barry K.
http://bkhome.org/archive/puppylinux/faq.htm
When he stopped controlling Puppy development and turned it all over to the Puppy community.
It got archived because he shutdown his active Puppy web pages.
Still some useful info in it, even if it is a little old and not updated to the newest Puppies.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
rcrsn51 has highlighted an excellent way of getting usb "savefile" writes to terminate quickly (and therefore successfully) at shutdown time.:rcrsn51 wrote:See ISObooter Page 12.
see http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 264#864264
Anything that reduces usb write time during shutdown has the potential to reduce potential triggers for savefile corruption.
I have a general question: can a usb stick run out of free space for containing a savefile, or is that space already allocated and available even if the stick fills up with other stuff? Could a savefile save process be negatively affected by a stick being full and fragmented?
Hi GreenGeek !
Good Question ....#Me-curiousToo......I have a general question: can a usb stick run out of free space for containing a savefile, or is that space already allocated and available even if the stick fills up with other stuff? Could a savefile save process be negatively affected by a stick being full and fragmented?
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
Morning, GG.
I'm no expert on this one, but AFAIK if a save file has been created, then it shouldn't be affected by 'other stuff'.
Say (for the purposes of illustration) that you've got a 2 GB savefile on an 8 GB stick. No matter what happens, Puppy only has 6 GB for itself and 'other stuff'. That 2 GB is ear-marked; I don't pretend to understand how Puppy creates save-files, but it's as though that 2 GB is already full, even though, to start with, it's empty.
I'm guessing that the inodes, or whatever metadata 'pointers' are in use, are telling the file-system that the new, 'empty' save-file is already occupying that 2 GB of space. It is, in effect, a 2 GB-sized 'container'.
Does any of that even make sense? I know what I'm trying to say, but I'm not always so good at putting it into words; the grey matter's not so nimble as it once was..!
----------------------------------------
As to how fragmentation would affect it, I don't know. I have no idea whether the 2 GB of space our hypothetical save-file occupies can fragment, once created. We need a real expert for that one; I guess the only person who could give a definitive answer, one way or another, would be BK himself.
The only thing I can say for definite is that which we all know.....and that is that fragmentation is very much less with a Linux file-system that it is with a Windoze one, due to the ways in which the two write data to storage devices.
NTFS writes each and every sequential data 'packet' to the first available bit of space it finds, whereas any Linux file-system, whether ext 2/3/4/whatever, will make a concerted effort to keep as much of any given data file together, as close as it can. AFAICT, it's perfectly possible for the space within the save-file to fragment, just as it can outside of it.....I simply don't know enough about it to say otherwise.
Mike.
I'm no expert on this one, but AFAIK if a save file has been created, then it shouldn't be affected by 'other stuff'.
Say (for the purposes of illustration) that you've got a 2 GB savefile on an 8 GB stick. No matter what happens, Puppy only has 6 GB for itself and 'other stuff'. That 2 GB is ear-marked; I don't pretend to understand how Puppy creates save-files, but it's as though that 2 GB is already full, even though, to start with, it's empty.
I'm guessing that the inodes, or whatever metadata 'pointers' are in use, are telling the file-system that the new, 'empty' save-file is already occupying that 2 GB of space. It is, in effect, a 2 GB-sized 'container'.
Does any of that even make sense? I know what I'm trying to say, but I'm not always so good at putting it into words; the grey matter's not so nimble as it once was..!
----------------------------------------
As to how fragmentation would affect it, I don't know. I have no idea whether the 2 GB of space our hypothetical save-file occupies can fragment, once created. We need a real expert for that one; I guess the only person who could give a definitive answer, one way or another, would be BK himself.
The only thing I can say for definite is that which we all know.....and that is that fragmentation is very much less with a Linux file-system that it is with a Windoze one, due to the ways in which the two write data to storage devices.
NTFS writes each and every sequential data 'packet' to the first available bit of space it finds, whereas any Linux file-system, whether ext 2/3/4/whatever, will make a concerted effort to keep as much of any given data file together, as close as it can. AFAICT, it's perfectly possible for the space within the save-file to fragment, just as it can outside of it.....I simply don't know enough about it to say otherwise.
Mike.
