(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Just rename them from <whatever>_215.sfs to <whatever>_216.sfs. I don't know if they'll work in 2.16, but they might. Probably there will be some minor bugs, but they should be okay overall. I'm fairly certain that web_215.sfs will be fine, because I intentionally made it as independent from Puppy 2.15CE as I could. I'm actually using it in Pizzapup 3.0.1 right now. One issue you might have is if Seamonkey will load the Flash and Java plugins from it, as I don't know if 2.16 has Seamonkey in the same spot as 2.15. Firefox will be fine though, since it's contained within the web_215.sfs itself.

Lobster wrote:Barry also asked for alternative grey backgrounds - the enclosed is 20k - done entirely in Mtpaint and based on a 2.15 background[/i]

I thought he was also interested in "light" backgrounds that will go well with Puppy Luv. Here is my "quick and dirty" response to that request.

http://www.puppylinux.org/user/photogal ... ?photo=243

Cheers

Perhaps it is just me but Gparted doesn't seem to function in alpha. I decided to reformat the logical partition where Exp2 was on and it wouldn't reformat! I tried three times and then changed to the experiment 2 disk and reformated without issue.

Another great puppy which seems faster.

In one of the other locations I cited above, I reiterated the argument for an all-black (Kiwi?!), power-saving, life-extending BLACK background default. It looks great, too. Folks with poor sight and oldies will also appreciate this choice for its improved contrast. Black can, of course, be self-selected at any time from the menu. This will also redirect essential effort towards bug-fixing and development rather than breeding yet another generation of amateur artists and graffiti writers....

Pizzasgood wrote:Just rename them from <whatever>_215.sfs to <whatever>_216.sfs. I don't know if they'll work in 2.16, but they might. Probably there will be some minor bugs, but they should be okay overall. I'm fairly certain that web_215.sfs will be fine, because I intentionally made it as independent from Puppy 2.15CE as I could. I'm actually using it in Pizzapup 3.0.1 right now. One issue you might have is if Seamonkey will load the Flash and Java plugins from it, as I don't know if 2.16 has Seamonkey in the same spot as 2.15. Firefox will be fine though, since it's contained within the web_215.sfs itself.

I renamed the files, but OpenOffice is still missing.

Huh. Well, now I think about it, it could be that new sfs loader people have been talking about. I haven't had time to follow it's development though, so I know little about it. But my gut says look into it.


As for wallpapers, the grey default makes the monitor look like it wants to smother me. Too oppressive. Here's some other ones that have more of a Puppy personality (including a mostly black one):
http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/ar ... r/neon.jpg
http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/ar ... /white.jpg
http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/ar ... eached.jpg

Also, the beach ones I made previously look okay on it too. If the colors were tweaked a little to be more gray than tan it would be better:
http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/ar ... 00x600.jpg
http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/ar ... 00x600.jpg
(alternate sizes of these ones are available on my website, among others)

I haven't made any new ones recently, but if nothing's needed for a week or so I could make a gray/blue one specifically for 2.16 either between or after my exams. I've been itching to play with my new Wacom tablet, but I've been too busy with school lately to do anything. Fortunately next week is finals week.

To devc51,
May be you will run the sfsinstaller to install your .sfs file. I'd got the same trouble (as your) when I put the .sfs in /home.
Is that the 216 alpha' bug?

for sfs files in 216 you need to use the bootmanager to specify which sfs files you want to load - it works a bit differently than the previous versions and just adding the version number in will not help
the bootmananger is found in the system sub-menu and is pretty self explanatory

after choosing what you want you will need to reboot to get them

George

vern72023 wrote:for sfs files in 216 you need to use the bootmanager to specify which sfs files you want to load - it works a bit differently than the previous versions and just adding the version number in will not help
the bootmananger is found in the system sub-menu and is pretty self explanatory

after choosing what you want you will need to reboot to get them

George

I renamed the OO and Web sfs files, ran the bootmanager as Vern suggested, and I have both OO and my beloved Firefox. Nothing was added to my menus, but I just dragged a copy of the icons from /usr/loca/bin to my desktop.
All this strengthens my conviction (probably an illusion) that Puppy can do everything.

davec51 wrote:... I have both OO and my beloved Firefox. Nothing was added to my menus, but I just dragged a copy of the icons from /usr/loca/bin to my desktop.
All this strengthens my conviction (probably an illusion) that Puppy can do everything.

Your menu entries should show up if you run fixmenus from a console and then restart the WM. Open Office will show as a submenu under Documents. Not sure if Firefox and Thunderbird end up under Internet, but they should.

Cheers

Here's a grey background for 2.16 I created in mtPaint that's not too distracting. I called it earlgrey.jpg. It's 1024x768 and only 56K. Download it by right-clicking on the image and choosing 'Save Image As...'

Showtime!

I like it pakt.

When I first started using it Puppy I was well aware that it had the best most flexible useful structure. It did not look great but it was. From the start Puppy seemed very different. Slowly and gradually we have become a prettier distro. We are kind of the Wii Linux. Not the most glamorous but the most playable . . .

Now then . . . people come to the grey and they 'must change' and they can . . .

I am using 2.16 at the moment and the plain grey is very unobtrusive. Puppy does not belong to the Glitz tradition of Linux but after a visit to the Puppy parlour we have Viz, Grafpup, Rudy, Pizzapup and all manner of enhancement.

I am panting for Beryl . . .

Still think the evidence for a stunning black background is superior. Indeed, here is a link for a black background:





PS. Sorry, lost concentration for a moment, Lob. Beryl? Tell her if she wants her pants back, she'll have to come around to collect them.....

Sage wrote:Still think the evidence for a stunning black background is superior. Indeed, here is a link for a black background

Sorry, Sage, but ergonomically a light background is superior. Here's an excerpt from Visual Ergonomics in the Office:

SCREEN COLORS

* Screen colors: dark letters on a light background.

With the monitor off, look at your reflection in the screen. Now turn the monitor on and select a Windows-type background, (black letters on a white background). Notice that you cannot see your reflection as well.

Contrast is simply the difference in brightness between two images. With a white background, we reduce the difference in contrast between the screen and what is reflected off of it.

Negative screen contrast (black letters/white background) can reduce reflected images, as we saw with the demonstration. A white background also reduces the luminance (brightness) difference between the screen and the surrounding background of a normally lighted office. That makes it easier on your eyes.

Most early monitor screens had a black background with white, green or amber characters. Although white backgrounds were possible, the low quality of the monitors meant that the screen would flicker noticeably. Although newer technology has reduced the necessity, there are still many software programs with dark backgrounds.

We don't have to worry about all that now pakt - and there's no reflection from most lcd screens. The difference in power saving and lifetime extension is significant, anyway.
As for contrast - not correct. In the early 80's, Alan Sugar deployed yellow on dark blue to overcome the primitive technologies available at that time. He is reputed to have consulted on the issue. It certainly worked. He would have been running the PC industry worldwide now had it not been for dirty tricks by transatlantic bullies. Sound familiar?!
Apart from which, the guys on your link are utterly wrong. Try it! A black background is far less strain. This fact is both subjectively as well as intuitively evident!

Sage wrote:Try it! A black background is far less strain.

?
tried it Sage. Many times. many monitors. Many conditions.

In theory yes. In practice I find black on white background more legible.

We dont use black paper with white print.

That is why grey is a good compromise for those extolling the virtues of their preference - which clearly don't appear black or white . . .

Black paper costs more to make and white pencils are less than satisfactory. Those technologies don't apply here, and the green credentials are reversed for electronic media.

Sage, you obviously require a bit more convincing so here are two more excerpts from serious ergonomics sources:

From FAQ at http://www.netsci.org/Science/Special/feature01.html

5)Q. Is there an optimum screen brightness and color scheme to help prevent eye strain?

A. Black characters against a light gray background are often easiest on the eyes for long periods. Its suggested that contrast and brightness should be adjusted to create the brightest screen without blurring.

From http://www.northwestern.edu/risk/Ergo.htm, excerpt from the "Ergonomic Survey to see if you have task/risk factors"
(the lower the points the better)

4. The primary screen used has:

a. A very light background with dark characters similar to print on paper (2 points)
b. A light colored background with darker characters (4 points)
c. A dark colored or black background with light characters (8 points)

I could find any number of authoritative sources supporting this: for best computer ergonomics, ie, to make is easier on the eyes, you should have dark characters on a light background.

Sage, please show me a serious reference that recommends what you suggest: light characters on a dark background.

This fact is both subjectively as well as intuitively evident

Have you tried it yet?!
The eye is a remarkable instrument. It can discriminate a candle flickering at three miles. It is degraded by bright lights which tend to saturate the rods and cones all too easily. Everyone knows this - try shining a torch into one eye - it takes a few minutes to recover. The phenomenon of persistence of vision is known to every schoolchild. Furthermore, once your eyes accostom themselves to a 'dark' room, most folks begin to discern the objects around them, since the complete absence of light is difficult to achieve. You may get a good view of the stars up there in the archipelagos, but down here in our crowded towns (and countryside), we are blighted by street lights, commonly referred to as light pollution.
So, go on try a black background and see how much you will like it and how soothing it is on the eyes. If you wish, put up yellow text. The nearer you can get to a green text and still resolve it the better as there is a sharp dip in response in this part of the spectrum.
Light, especially toward the blue end, degrades nearly everything organic ie based on carbon, that includes people! The chemistry is irrefutable.

Ahh....... let there be a light-errrr touch on this.....

light characters on a dark background

> The Sky ?

In the beginning - there was no light - so God said "Let there be Light"

& by G - there was

In "The Beginning" There was nothing but dark
Nothing however, could be seen.
So G created light: nothing could still be seen - but it was now evident, since in all wisdom > light had been cast on the subject

So you see, Ergo - How this is "felt" is now the topic.
Seeing the background is as dark as ever it was In the Beginning
Sage, do ya follow the code ?

Oh BTW - colour as we see it - is NOT