MochiMoppel wrote:I've noticed that you even took the trouble to remove the save option from rc.shutdown.
Yes AND No.
Please, do have a look again into /etc/rc.d and you'll find 3 (three) rc.shutdown files.
As there are:
new-rc.shutdown
orig-rc.shutdown
rc.shutdown
I'm using this to switch a option to create a save file (if wanted), which is able to be switched on/off by LazY Puppy's Shutdown-GUI.
All this to prevent the use of a simple and pretty reliable save solution in favour of a undocumented private "solution"?
Also, please: do have a first or maybe a second search on the forum for my (RSH, R-S-H) postings AND
SFS P.L.U.S. and/or
RunScript/s.
You'll find several threads/postings and also several solutions to use LazY Puppy's modular concept in any other puppy (except FatDog) as well. These solutions do fairly well document the LazY Puppy Concept.
That's why I've reserved the second post of this here thread: to collect and to present all my several (not really much) different solutions for this Modular Concept.
And I'm not talking about removing of the save file function. Also I did offer the package of Config and Data SFS Manager to be developed by anyone who wants to do this.
So, no undocumented private solution to worry about!
And, oh. If you do such a search, would you please, read the comments from (e.g.) 8-bit somewhere in the multisession live CD/DVD thread. I created one solution for him especially added a new feature, which is now a part of my latest SFS P.L.U.S. version (currently not on the web).
And even though LazY Puppy is the one and only (actually known by me and possibly known on the forum) Puppy Linux (Derivative) which is used as an replacement for Windows on a German Public School, it (this here thread) is NOT made to promote LazY Puppy.
I appreciate your efforts and all the work and new ideas that went into Lazy Puppy and I understand your desire to promote this work (one of the reasons for this thread?),
It is made first for discussion about what the title says and second, to promote this concept of a modular use of an operating system - in this here case: Puppy Linux (as the title stated).
So, the problem, to read
RSH and to think
LazY Puppy obviously is only existing in your mind?
Aren't you a bit carried away in your crusade for modularization?
Of course, I'm not. I'm just an enthusiastic and convinced Artist!
I don't see how basically merging the package list of the Package Manager into the menu makes it more modular than other Puppies.
I remember (Lucid?) which didn't even came with a browser. Had to be selected, downloaded and installed. Not modular?
No!
Because of there is a HUGE difference between installing a PET and loading an SFS.
Previous Puppies came with 2 window managers, now with only one, Lazy comes with 3. Which one is more modular?
This here is NOT about LazY Puppy, but to give an answer:
- Lazy Puppy has those three Window Managers installed (instead of using an SFS) because of my LESS knowledge, at the time when creating all of this
- Me one just wasn't able to write code (or even edit the needed existing files) to implement the use of Window Manager SFS Modules
- now I have installed only one WM and can load/use others the same way like the usual LP2_ SFS Modules
- I can also boot a specific WM now
- this also is not an undocumented private feature/solution since I have published such Operating Systems in DE only versions
I have a collection of sfs and pet files on my HD, which I load when I need them, but I use something that you call a "Non-Modular Operating System". Does it make my system half-modular?
I don't know what this does to your system and I even don't care about how this would/should be named.
As I have replied to oldyeller:
Modular just means: to use SFS files. Each SFS is a Module containing an application. Modular use means: load an application (its Module) only when needed to work with. Keeps the OS small and therefor offers a lot of free RAM for the application in use.
Why to have 150 MB Office Suite plus 30-40 MB Browser package installed, when just wanting to use the GIMP?
It could also mean to use RoxApps, but I'm focused to the use of SFS Modules.
Installing a PET package to me is neither modular nor half-, triple-, quarter-, or whatever-modular.
Puppy is tiny. What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?
These 30 MB (GZ compression for example) could result in 100 MB uncompressed files (dependent to what is inside the the compressed file). Using XZ compression could result in even a lot of more need space for the uncompressed files.
I don't own a computer with huge RAM available - and I assume, many other also don't have such computers. So, to me it is necessary to have as much free RAM as possible for the use of an application.
Vincent van Puppy (e.g.) is not really usable on my computer. But since I do have a smaller OS (LazY Precise), which gives me each equal application in an SFS Module to load - plus many more, I don't need to use it.
And about LazY Puppy again: this is not for LazY Puppy. I just don't own any other Operating System to get in comparison with Puppy Linux Systems, because once I've added the applications for the modular concept, it is (and still will be) renamed (remastered) to a LazY Puppy (different DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX-es used, though).
mikeb wrote:As for the modular argument I did suggest before that all software could come as an sfs and the package manager would simply extract those for anyone using a convention save or a full install... so reducing the need for software in 2 forms..pet and sfs. That would also mean less space needed for the install process and less bandwidth.
Yes, very good point!
(like my repo at smokey01.com
)
simargl5 wrote:A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX
Could you please add some further information here?
Since I'm mostly online with ~10 KB/s, I'm not really able to search the web for this).
sunburnt wrote:# So as I say... There`s a lot to like about Squash files,
---
A reply to others will follow...
RSH