(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Posted: **Tue 29 May 2012, 10:35**

LOL JB!!! That's a good one!

Billtoo? One thing I've always noticed using Qupzilla on all my Puppy installs, be they frugal or hard drive: Unless I had an accompanying KDE-4.7.3 desktop equally installed ( you can find it under "Additional Software" by Battleshooter ) the browser failed to render .gif files, especially those found here on the forum - they would all be replaced by little "?" marks in blue boxes. Most annoying to be sure!

It would do this even if I had a full install ( "full" as in "entirely complete" ) of the Qt-4 libraries under "/usr/libs/qt4". I found this to be quite strange. So apparently it was lacking something from the "/usr/libs/kde4" section despite my doing an "ldd qupzilla" check in CLI for dependencies and having it tell me that all dependencies were met.

Like I said, however, once I added the KDE-4.7.3 desktop qupzilla worked perfectly fine. In fact, I frequently use it here when not using Dillo-3.0.2.

Just thought I'd throw this in to compare notes with you to see what you've discovered.

Cheers/Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"

Posted: **Tue 29 May 2012, 12:29**

Eyes-Only wrote:LOL JB!!! That's a good one!

Billtoo? One thing I've always noticed using Qupzilla on all my Puppy installs, be they frugal or hard drive: Unless I had an accompanying KDE-4.7.3 desktop equally installed ( you can find it under "Additional Software" by Battleshooter ) the browser failed to render .gif files, especially those found here on the forum - they would all be replaced by little "?" marks in blue boxes. Most annoying to be sure!

It would do this even if I had a full install ( "full" as in "entirely complete" ) of the Qt-4 libraries under "/usr/libs/qt4". I found this to be quite strange. So apparently it was lacking something from the "/usr/libs/kde4" section despite my doing an "ldd qupzilla" check in CLI for dependencies and having it tell me that all dependencies were met.

Like I said, however, once I added the KDE-4.7.3 desktop qupzilla worked perfectly fine. In fact, I frequently use it here when not using Dillo-3.0.2.

Just thought I'd throw this in to compare notes with you to see what you've discovered.

Cheers/Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"

Hi, I haven't seen that yet, I compiled QupZilla in Fatslacko and it shows qt470 because I installed kdegames and qt470 gets installed too along with the kde stuff, I'm a bit of a kshisen addict

I've been spending most of my time in fatdog64 600a2 and I have the full qt482 installed in that, I haven't noticed any blue boxes while using QupZilla in fatdog.

Bill

EDIT: I booted my Fatslacko puppy pfix=ram, downloaded and installed the QupZilla pet, googled gif images.
Maybe compiling with kdegames installed prevented the problem.

Posted: **Thu 31 May 2012, 11:26**

Thanks for the updated info Billtoo re: Qupzilla. How fascinating that it works for you so well and yet not for me unless as I've described in my above post. -scratches head-

Oh well! As I used to tell people when doing gecko developement, "When working in a static environment it was always easy to predict just how it [ gecko ] would work and behave. However, when once released ino the jungle of everyone's hard drive with hundreds upon hundreds of programmes - and you're only using gecko products - no telling how all those zeros and ones will interact!"

In other words: "Is there really such a thing as an 'exact science' out there? REALLY?" I think not. We often delude ourselves... but now I'm robbing the thread and waxing philosophical. LOL!

Again Billtoo: Thanks for the extensive report as it was very much appreciated!

Cheers/Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"

Posted: **Sat 16 Jun 2012, 15:18**

is this 64bit?

Posted: **Sat 16 Jun 2012, 20:06**

capicoso wrote:is this 64bit?

FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy

Here to help

Posted: **Mon 18 Jun 2012, 09:26**

gcmartin wrote:
capicoso wrote:is this 64bit?
FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy

Here to help

I've tried FAT Slacko and it does work in just 512 MB of RAM, but there's a snag in my experience; you can't eject the CD from the drive, e.g. to play a CD or DVD or burn an ISO to a CD etc., with only that much RAM.

It's a good effort anyway, so thanks for putting it together.

CP .

Posted: **Mon 18 Jun 2012, 11:16**

Cheat frugal it.

Copy the main >> .sfs file to the hard drive >>> lowercase

Reboot....next time you can then unmount the cd.

Chris.

Posted: **Mon 18 Jun 2012, 11:23**

Colonel Panic wrote:
gcmartin wrote:
capicoso wrote:is this 64bit?
FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy

Here to help
I've tried FAT Slacko and it does work in just 512 MB of RAM, but there's a snag in my experience; you can't eject the CD from the drive, e.g. to play a CD or DVD or burn an ISO to a CD etc., with only that much RAM.

It's a good effort anyway, so thanks for putting it together.

CP .

From the developer.....

01micko wrote:FATSlacko is NOT an official product but a puplet. It is directly based on the upcoming Slacko-5.3.3. It is also the PAE version which will see your large RAM and as such is recommended for higher end machines.

Minimum system requirements <-- Pentium III 1 GHz processor, 768 MB RAM.

Recommended <-- 1.5 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM

Posted: **Mon 18 Jun 2012, 15:56**

cthisbear wrote:Cheat frugal it.

Copy the main >> .sfs file to the hard drive >>> lowercase

Reboot....next time you can then unmount the cd.

Chris.

Good idea, might try that. Thanks

Cheers,

CP .

Posted: **Mon 18 Jun 2012, 16:02**

James C wrote:
Colonel Panic wrote:
gcmartin wrote:FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy

Here to help
I've tried FAT Slacko and it does work in just 512 MB of RAM, but there's a snag in my experience; you can't eject the CD from the drive, e.g. to play a CD or DVD or burn an ISO to a CD etc., with only that much RAM.

It's a good effort anyway, so thanks for putting it together.

CP .
From the developer.....

01micko wrote:FATSlacko is NOT an official product but a puplet. It is directly based on the upcoming Slacko-5.3.3. It is also the PAE version which will see your large RAM and as such is recommended for higher end machines.

Minimum system requirements <-- Pentium III 1 GHz processor, 768 MB RAM.

Recommended <-- 1.5 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM

Thanks for your reply. Fair enough, and I didn't realise that. It's useful for others to know in that case that FAT Slacko will run in 512 MB of RAM.

CP ,

Posted: **Wed 20 Jun 2012, 18:19**

Guys! capicoso recommended this puppy to me in another thread.

I downloaded the iso and set it up like many other puppies
and it failed to boot. Look at my menu.lst

title FATSlacko
rootnoverify (hd0,2)
kernel /FATslacko/vmlinuz psubdir=FATslacko puppy pfix=ram
initrd /FATslacko/initrd.gz

What would I need to change to get it to boot?

I tried it on Acer D250 an Atom CPU and 1GB RAM
and it has Intel Graphic

Now capicoso doesn't seem to realize that the reason
that I am interested in FatDog is due to it being a
multi-user Linux distro.

So maybe he misunderstood why I where active in that thread.

Is FATSlacko really a multi-user distro?

Posted: **Wed 20 Jun 2012, 19:35**

Hey nooby, maybe it's just a typo...

I noticed you're using two different spelling for the distro...

FATSlacko and FATslacko... is one of these wrong?

Posted: **Wed 20 Jun 2012, 20:09**

I tried to be polite to the Devs of FATSlacko
AFAIK they use that spelling for iso? But I cheated
and used consequently??? FATslacko for all else?
I take a look just in case not being consistent. Good catch.

AFAIK I certainly are/is very consistent in menu.lst
and the subdir. So something else goes wrong.
Can be that I am using a single core Atom N250?
Maybe that one is demanding. The error messages in red
are too numerous to write down. Seems to be about
files and drivers and I don't get anything out of them.
Totally new to me what they write there. No other
puppy had had these messages.

Posted: **Thu 21 Jun 2012, 06:24**

Ah maybe Acer D250 is 32 bit while Acer D255 is a 64-bit one?
That would explain it? But the error codes did not mention it.

I switch computer and see what happens

Posted: **Thu 21 Jun 2012, 06:54**

nooby wrote:Ah maybe Acer D250 is 32 bit while Acer D255 is a 64-bit one?
That would explain it? But the error codes did not mention it.

I switch computer and see what happens

FATSlacko is 32 bit, with PAE to support large RAM. If ordinary 32bit Slacko (PAE version) boots then this will boot as long as you have 512 RAM (Thanks Colonel Panic for tests

).

It shares the same code base as Slacko so that's why I left the main sfs with Slacko in the name. It keeps it entirely compatible with PPM and Slickpet. I may change this at a future date and also change the name as not to confuse with FatDog. The 2 projects are unrelated in a base code sense. There is no multiuser in FATSlacko or Slacko at the current time.

Code: Select all

title Puppy FATSlacko 5.3.3x (sda1/slacko-pro)
  find --set-root --ignore-floppies --ignore-cd /slacko-pro/initrd.gz
  kernel /slacko-pro/vmlinuz   psubdir=slacko-pro pmedia=atahd pfix=fsck
  initrd /slacko-pro/initrd.gz

It's only called FAT because it has a ton of extra apps useful for serious productivity.

I was toying with the idea of calling it "Slacko Professional" but it's not as yet. May be one day

HTH

Posted: **Thu 21 Jun 2012, 07:07**

Thanks for taking time to care about my problem booting.

Edit. To make a long post very short.
Something did happen when I wrote FATslacko Some error that
is on the bit level because it looked okey so I made some error.

It got solved when I renamed it to slacko-pro and it booted just fine.

old text no reason to read this one. So typical nooby text. Tedius.

I used this code and it gave errors and refused to boot on the other computer too. Standard Slacko do boot on both computers.

title FATSlacko
find --set-root --ignore-floppies --ignore-cd /FATslacko/initrd.gz
kernel /FATslacko/vmlinuz PMEDIA=idehd PDEV1=sda2 psubdir=FATslacko puppy pfix=ram
initrd /FATslacko/initrd.gz

Edit. After extensive testing I conclude it where my bad.
BS behind the wheels or what it is named.

I must unknowingly had made a typing error in the FATslacko
So that one of the letters belonged to a foreign language or
outside the keymap because it gave error code that it failed to find the keymap.

I tested many many variation on booting and they all failed with the original name I had chosen but as soon as I changed the FAT to slacko-pro then
it booted regardless of if I had pmedia=atahd or scsihd or no pmedia at all.

I also tested this bragging code

title Puppy FATSlacko 5.3.3x (sda1/slacko-pro)
find --set-root --ignore-floppies --ignore-cd /SLACKO-PRO/initrd.gz
kernel /SLACKO-PRO/vmlinuz pmedia=atahd psubdir=SLACKO-PRO pfix=fsck
initrd /SLACKO-PRO/initrd.gz

that one booted too. So my bad something in the orignal name of the subdir
went wrong but looked still like FATslacko so not detectable. Now it boots regardless of what I do.

Like I trusted it is not a multi-user OS so he misunderstood why I liked FatDog thinking the reason where that both where fat.

Posted: **Fri 22 Jun 2012, 15:54**

I know how annoying it is to derail a thread.
Not sure how to handle this at all. I give links
and see if that is better solution than to continue here.

gcmartin suggested that I would answer his questions
here in this thread. Is that really polite?
Here is the link to his Q:s

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 894#635894

Here is the new thread that I created.

Wish 32-bit multi-user version of Fatdog64 for next Puppy!

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=79218

Unless you guys at FATSlacko insist that we continue here
I ask you kindly to answer over there in my new thread.
I don't trust that regular reader of this thread wants to deal with
Multi user requests of FATSlacko. Why would they?

Posted: **Fri 06 Jul 2012, 15:49**

I just installed FATslacko on the office computer for my secretary - applied fixes from micko - all went well and smooth.

Saved me lots of time of configuring!
Only thing I changed was that I installed opera for email (I need IMAP and I like the thread feature of opera very much, because several people work on the same email accounts from different locations).

FAT version should be an alternative official version of any future puppy. Majority of people who want to work with puppy will have to install those additional packages anyway - imho.
thanks
emil

Posted: **Mon 09 Jul 2012, 09:01**

Fat Slacko running well on my Acer D250 netbook (might be the same model as yours nooby...), but with one exception so far -

If I open a .bmp with mtPaint and then try to save it as a .jpg, there is no .jpg option in the dialog. I don't have a lot of experience with mtPaint but I'm pretty sure I've been able to do this on other puppies.

However, if I take a screenshot with mtPaint I can save it as .jpg without problems.
EDIT:I've just realised that if I take a screenshot and save it as .bmp, then reopen it with mtpaint I it WILL let me convert/save it as .jpg - so there must be something wrong with the other .bmp that mtpaint can open it ok, but not convert it to .jpg. Weird. (The bad .bmp was created with Libreoffice draw)

Also, the prtsc key on this Acer netbook is not working with fatslacko, but does work on my Tosh TE2100 with slacko53. (can't remember if I had added any extra pet on slacko53 to enable it...). Should it be working on Fat Slacko?
EDIT: Ignore this prtsc problem - I just realised the button DOES work, but just not when the mtPaint save dialog suffix choice box was up on screen. Also, it doesn't work when I am just looking at the basic desktop background - only when a window is open.

Posted: **Tue 17 Jul 2012, 10:37**

This is the first puppy I have put on my ASUS 1201T and had pretty much most stuff work, i.e. wireless, and have some of the extra stuff. It even works with the Trinity sfs. I still use JWM most of the time due to the fact that the default apps in JWM work with puppy more nicely.. The PAE kernel lets me take advantage of the RAM. I tried Lighthouse 64 bit and fatdog but LHP takes so much longer to load, and fatdog at the time had very limited packages.

I had some acpi scripts that I found somewhere for another puppy so most of my Fn keys work.

I have and am still a kubuntu fan; however, my battery kicks much more quickly when running that... more processor with more eye candy = less runtime.

Thanks for the hard work with this.. It is truly a breeze to use and a pleasure to use.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

FATSlacko

failure to boot

Thanks for this