Puppy 5.3

[puppyite]

I would be more confident if 01micko said that there will be no compatibility problems between pet files for 5.3 and 5.2.5.

Can I conclude that you’re saying the package manager for 5.3 will only list those packages that are compatible with 5.3 and the package manager for 5.2.5 will only list those packages that are compatible with 5.2.5? Does this preclude the possibility that an incompatible pet file can be installed in either version?

I do not speak for 01micko at all. I simply told you what was the case with Lucid 5.2.5. The default in PPM is the puppy-lucid repo. For sure, 01micko will not be putting pets for Spup in there.

I also told you that the pets I make for Lucid have lucid in the name--so that warns anyone to not blithely use them in Spup or any other version

I then said that I believed these two facts would cover 95% of any potential problem.

But 95% is not 100%, so I did not say there would be no potential compatibility problems. If someone took a pet from Additional Software that was not specified for Spup then who knows. But in my experience, people who post pets do say what versions they are designed and tested for. IMHO this is no different than the many pets available for 4.3.1 that would not work in Lucid, etc.

Fair enough, thank you for your reply playdayz.

I assume there is no need for a missive from 01micko on this subject.

[playdayz]

A Word of Encouragement for everyone Involved

I remembered this in pm'ing with Lobster today.

We had been working on Karmic Puppy and the first version of Lucid Puppy for 4 months, from early November 2009 to early March 2010, before Barry asked if we would like to go official.

It was kind of funny, Lobster had asked if we could do something and I replied that that would be something that an official Puppy would do--and the next day we were laughing about it because overnight we had become official.

[jonyo]

i think several have now proposed this variant as a community edition and i'm in support

if there is not an informal agreement a poll could settle that or any issue

[sc0ttman]

I think we should just let 01micko choose what HE wants as a name and version, as we all TRUST him to come up with a GREAT puppy! He listens, he takes things on board, he works hard, he's organised, productive... just like playdayz..

I have my preferences for names and versions, as does everyone else, but regardless of the name, I'm sure it will be great and we will all enjoy and benefit from the hard work.

[Lobster]

Ok lobster but the next one after that could very well be Barry's latest Dpup, It runs very nice, I think I'll stick with it for a while.
ttuuxxx

Understood and good news.
Hope you will do some compiling (as you did for Lucid)
later on
Some great Dpup innovation already exists from Guy Posil with earlier Dpup. Debian has great software repositories
Does dejan555 now have this website from Guy I wonder?
http://www.dpup.org/

I have been using Spup (pre alpha2) for about a week. Yes pre alpha, so very early but certainly already very usable,
Woof works as a great base and 01micko is no slacker - wait - maybe he is . . .
Spup may not yet run on everyones hardware. Early days.
Already a clear direction is available from Spup to Spot.
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Puppy53

I am sure Iguleder and Barry can get an Rpup (Red Hat/rpm compatible) working for Woof (first step taken)
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02302

A new post Lucid Upup based on the latest Woof is also possible for the adventuresome . . .
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Upup

All these Woof based Puppys will have Barrys fixes and innovations
including the developing Fido optional non root booting
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02240

Puppy Linux
More fun than your average penguin

[jonyo]

i'd like to see a solution to root so that distrowatch doesn't become another rootfest when a pup is released

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue ... [quote]Got root?

Every time you read a review of Puppy Linux, inevitably the reviewer brings up the issue of Puppy's rather unusual user profile, which is to run the desktop and all applications as root (aka the "superuser"). Our intrepid reviewer then points out that this could be a security hole. Just as inevitably, one or more commenters out in Blogland comes riding to the rescue, protesting that Puppy is just as secure as any other Linux distro. "Running as root is safe - millions of users do so without ever getting hacked, so it can't be a security risk," says this voice, followed by: "Why do you reviewers keep whining about this?"

Because it is a security risk. In the next few paragraphs I will whine about this too, just like my predecessors. Feel free to skip ahead if you'd rather not read my whining, though by doing so you'll also miss my suggestions on how to minimize the risk.

So to clarity: when you boot up Puppy, you are not presented with a log-in prompt. Rather, you are logged in automatically as root and no password is requested. In theory, that shouldn't matter on a single-user system. In practice, once you go online, you are no longer running a single-user system - you are on a network, and there are lots of mean, nasty people out there who will employ every dirty trick in the book to break into your machine.[/quote]blah blah

[nooby]

What Playdayz write here http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 299#525299

support what I have wrote in other threads. 525 was not compatible with Ubuntu at all. It needed that Puppy devs checked up things first to make it compatible.

Puppyite wrote:
I am more worried about the notion that Lucid Puppy is compatible with the Ubuntu repo.

Playdayz answered:
Personally I think we handled this and I did not see any major problems. Here's how. The puppy-lucid repo with a boatload of great software that is tested in Lucid was the only repo that showed by default in PPM. This was for people who wanted to add packages without hassle. The people who wanted to experiment could enable the Ubuntu repos and have at it. My experience is that some percentage of Ubuntu programs would work right off, some percentage would work with some tweaking, and some were nightmares from hell.

Puppy has the Puppy infrastructure, not the Ubuntu infrastructure. Ubuntu packages tend to require a huge number of dependencies--because those dependencies are already installed in Ubuntu. The only way to get 100% of Ubuntu packages to work would be to use the whole 650MB of Ubuntu infrastructure--and then we really would be a clone of Ubuntu--which we are not.

This part is seen from within a Puppy perspective.

"
Personally I think we handled this and I did not see any major problems. Here's how. The puppy-lucid repo with a boatload of great software that is tested in Lucid was the only repo that showed by default in PPM. This was for people who wanted to add packages without hassle. The people who wanted to experiment could enable the Ubuntu repos and have at it. My experience is that some percentage of Ubuntu programs would work right off, some percentage would work with some tweaking, and some were nightmares from hell."

My take on it is that somebody reading a review of Puppy like them was presented got badly misled. Them having no puppy experiences and reading that it was compatible with ubuntu would take any ubuntu file and test it in puppy and if hitting one of the ", some percentage would work with some tweaking, and some were nightmares from hell." " would feel very had at that moment.

Seen from a puppy perspective it was okay but seen from a general Linux expectation perspective it got people expecting too much.

My experience is that linux people trying out puppy would not know what Playdayz write there.

But sure I can be wrong. I only gave my honest take on it. It promised too much for somebody not familiar with how different Puppy is.

[Lobster]

Lucid 525 used binaries from 3 versions of Ubuntu
Lucid, Maverick and Natty.

We did have a high degree of compatibility with files from
Ubuntu and this meant they were easy for developers such as Ttuuxxx
to compile and turn into pets.

Puppy is not a clone or drone of other distros,
despite what some reviews imply.
We are open source, we belong to the family of penguins.

Much of the innovation which is bash script
which was created for Lucid, will be available for adoption in
Puppy 5.3, Spot - a name and number Mick (01micko) is quite happy with
last time I checked.

Larry (playdayz) worked harder than most people realise
with major support from
many testers, contributors, compilers and especially from Mick who
was there when the original Upup that became Lucid was being created.

Good to hear he is now supporting Mick with Spot
Many of the ideas, suggestions and possibilities for 5.3
on our wiki page have been suggested by early adopters.

[01micko]

What people tend to forget is that spup has binary compat with Slackware.

So what?

Well the main slackware repo is not the only one available, there is also Salix and Slacky both rich with extra apps.

So far I have a very good strike rate with my initial testing of slackware/salix/slacky apps.

Right at this minute I am running KDE-4.5.5 with Amarok installed direct from Slackware and Neverball/NeverPutt (Cool 3D game from Salix repo) and a multitude of other Slackware designed apps.

I have found with Ubuntu itself that some apps don't work ootb with earlier versions. This is true of all distros. The PPM will be the main place to get apps. Also, requests are often granted. Slackbuilds (a way of compiling using scripts) work quite well with spup. I also intend to include Amigo's "source2package" in the devx so requests can be fulfilled.

And.. as I have said before lupu/upup development is still quite active.

Cheers!

[Lobster]

Right at this minute I am running KDE-4.5.5 with Amarok installed direct from Slackware and Neverball/NeverPutt (Cool 3D game from Salix repo) and a multitude of other Slackware designed apps.

You are just taunting us . . .
I have played something similar to Neverball with the Wii balance board . . .
The KDE interface can be seen here:
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Puppy53Developers
I have only ever seen a pic - it could be a myth

Igu created KDE for Lucid - it was not tweaked but was a very nice option

Looking forward to pre-Alpha 3/Alpha 1 . . .

Puppy Linux

[RetroTechGuy]

i think several have now proposed this variant as a community edition and i'm in support

if there is not an informal agreement a poll could settle that or any issue

Has anyone suggested that you and Puppyite are not free to initiate such a project? Start it up, run it as a puplet, and see if it gets converted to "official".

And, of course, "official" or not, nothing prevents you from publishing your "Community Edition" as a puplet.

I have yet to understand why you are unwilling to make your own sandbox to play in.

[jonyo]

and nothing prevents me or others speaking our minds here,

a do it my way or make your own mentality is absurd

or is that what this variant is about?

[RetroTechGuy]

Lucid 525 used binaries from 3 versions of Ubuntu
Lucid, Maverick and Natty.

We did have a high degree of compatibility with files from
Ubuntu and this meant they were easy for developers such as Ttuuxxx
to compile and turn into pets.

Puppy is not a clone or drone of other distros,
despite what some reviews imply.
We are open source, we belong to the family of penguins.

Much of the innovation which is bash script
which was created for Lucid, will be available for adoption in
Puppy 5.3, Spot - a name and number Mick (01micko) is quite happy with
last time I checked.

Larry (playdayz) worked harder than most people realise
with major support from
many testers, contributors, compilers and especially from Mick who
was there when the original Upup that became Lucid was being created.

Good to hear he is now supporting Mick with Spot
Many of the ideas, suggestions and possibilities for 5.3
on our wiki page have been suggested by early adopters.

All I have to says is...You Guys ROCK!!!

[jonyo]

Has anyone suggested that you and Puppyite are not free to initiate such a project? Start it up, run it as a puplet, and see if it gets converted to "official".

has anyone suggested that a poll, or vote can settle issues?

what problem do you folks have with someone speaking here?

and btw i believe nooby spoke in favor of a community edition

[jonyo]

and quite frankly, i don't want to participate in yet another variant

that becomes yet another rootfest at distrowatch

[RetroTechGuy]

and nothing prevents me or others speaking our minds here,

Has anyone told you that you cannot speak? I haven't seen it. I did see Puppite request a thread be shut down -- presumably to stop the criticism of his ideas...

a do it my way or make your own mentality is absurd

The project manager is going to run the project the way he wants to run it.

Now Puppyite wants to establish veto power over the project manager, whose job it is to run the project. The old term for this is "armchair quarterbacking". A project manager cannot do his job if you try to micromanage him.

You apparently think that those whose reject Puppyite's plan to highjack 01Micko's project, are somehow in the wrong. I suppose it's also wrong for someone to defend themselves against a home intruder?...

Let me ask again, by what authority would you claim power over 01micko, and the devs who have joined his project? They voluntarily joined 01micko, but you and Puppyite apparently think that you can order them around?... Very strange.

Projects are like battlefield plans, and "democracy" is a poor way to run a battle plan. The field marshal (project manager) sets the goals, and the army (team) carries it out.

or is that what this variant is about?

Puppyite clearly wants his own sandbox, but won't take the effort to create one. So instead he wants to try to take 01micho's sandbox away -- and I'm sure that Puppyite would also complain if 01micko and his team picked up and started yet another sandbox (project).

The fact is, you aren't going to force volunteers to work on a project that they don't want to work on, or down a path that they don't want to follow.

Start a project. Call it Puppyite's Puplet or whatever. Run it the way you want, and develop your Puppy version in parallel. If the project is well-run, you might find devs jumping on board, if it isn't well run, they will leave. Call it "Community Edition" if you'd like.

The fact that 01micko is running a development project in no way prevents you from also running one. There are a number of example of this. ttuuxxx has his ever-updated 2.14 Top7. Macpup, Puppeee, Lighthouse Pup,... Barry has his variants, which are outside the "Official Puppy". Here, you can look some of these up for yourself:

http://puppylinux.org/main/Puplet%20for ... atures.htm

And let me note that I have great confidence that 01micko will bring his project to fruition.

[jonyo]

way to open up a pandora's box troublemaker

[RetroTechGuy]

and quite frankly, i don't want to participate in yet another variant that becomes yet another rootfest at distrowatch

I personally don't care what Distrowatch says about Puppy... Perhaps it's jealousy that they can't make their favorite OSes run as small and fast as Puppy...

Again we note, there is nothing to prevent those who don't like running as root from using a different distro, or modifying an existing one to not run as root, for example:

http://puppylinuxnews.org/puplets/puppy421multiuseriso/

[RetroTechGuy]

way to open up a pandora's box troublemaker

Absolutely!!!...

The Puppy community is not going to be poorer because more people work on their own favorite Puplet distros... More options, more choice... How can that possibly be bad?

[jonyo]

and nothing prevents me or others speaking our minds here,

Has anyone told you that you cannot speak? I haven't seen it.

the message seems to be my way or make your own

is it or isn't it?