Puppy and klhrevolutionist mentioned at Distrowatch

[marksouth2000]

Kenny's work on the Unofficial PuppyLinux Guide is discussed in an interview at

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/78415/index.html

WARNING: page contains graphic images, may not be worksafe!

This article was linked from today's Distrowatch Weekly at

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070115

Well done KLH.
Mark

[klhrevolutionist]

That went up a lot sooner than I expected.. Well, if you happen to like the PuppyGuide maybe "digg" it & help get the word out !

Digg It

[puppian]

I am sorry to see that there's some wrong information in that article.

PuppyLinux is one of the most popular "flavors" of Linux

When has Puppy changed its name from Puppy Linux to PuppyLinux? Note the space between the TWO words.

What is the PuppyLinux Foundation?
The PuppyLinux Foundation came about as an ideal to support the (PuppyLinux 1.xx Series) which is based on the 2.4 kernel. So a group of persons decided to try and do just that. It is still in the development phase but the webpage and many support links are already up. http://www.PuppyLinux-Foundation.com/

The website maintained by the Puppy Linux Foundation is located at Puppylinux.org. The foundation's history and details can be found in THIS PAGE and THIS PAGE. Raffy was the first person who came up with the idea of a foundation for Puppy Linux in the Third Quarter of 2005. Support for Puppy Linux 1.xx Series can always be found at http://forum.puppylinux.net/ (maintained by Ted Dog).
It is interesting to see a 'clone' of the foundation, its website and a clone of the Documentation Project (PLDP)...
The webmaster of this website is so confused that he even thinks Kenny is the creator of PuppyLinux!

Would Klh or author of that article be so kind to correct or delete the wrong/confusing information for us? Thanks in advance.

By the way, I would like to invite anyone who are interested in adding documentation for Puppy to join the Puppy Linux Documentation Project (PLDP) which was started in November 2005.
PLDP Homepage: http://puppylinux.org/docs/
Forum: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/index.php?f=13

Cheers,
Jay

[klhrevolutionist]

Some people such as myself refer to Puppy as PuppyLinux there is no harm in this or legal ordeals to be worried about.

I understand your concerns. Due to events that have happened in the past some of us felt it was necessary to make sure that one competing faction did not take control the direction of Puppy. Competition is good & breeds creativeness as we have witnessed using Linux. I feel there is room for another foundation and many others do too.

Of course we have taken steps to make sure that Barry K. is known as the creator of PuppyLinux and you can find all the info you need on our legal webpage. This person who assumes that I am the creator failed to look at the website in depth as well as misread the article featured on Lxer.com

The Foundations website can be found at the following,

PuppyLinux-Foundation.org
Mission Statement

[puppian]

Competition is good

Yes, but I don't think anyone should compete with "Puppy Linux" by starting his/her own distro and name it as "PuppyLinux".

As the same logic goes, I don't think anyone should compete with "Puppy Linux Foundation" by setting up something called "PuppyLinux-Foundation" or "PuppyLinux Foundation". I would say they are all impostors.

And why do you want to "compete" with Puppy Linux Foundation? IMHO we should all join hand in hand to foster the growth of Puppy. It is what a foundation is meant for. It is there to promote cooperation. You can simply join the existing foundation (or any other puppy-related projects that interest you) and 'compete' with other contributors by trying your best to contribute to Puppy.

[raffy]

Kenneth's unofficial guide is a positive contribution to Puppy Linux, and is being appreciated as such by Puppy Linux users.

However, Kenneth has strong views of the world around him that could make him act in a rather surprising manner. Announcing his "puppylinux foundation" shortly after Barry Kauler put on hold the idea of an organization for Puppy Linux is one such example. As far as I can remember, he has announced his departure from this forum twice because his strong views had been questioned by other regulars here.

That interview has already touched on his strong views, and names such as OLPC, etc, have already been brought forward.

Before more trouble develops in that direction, it is perhaps time for the Puppy Linux enthusiasts to disown that "foundation" that Kenneth is attaching to his signature.

[MU]

It is up to everyone to create websites, programs or foundations that support free software.
Though I'd prefer people work on one project, this is legal, and sometimes might really make sense, for example if one project is "dead".
The current situation of the first foundation shurely has lost some enthusiasm since there was no result in creating a officially registered foundation with legal contracts and such.

But I think it is no good attitude, to create new projects under a very similar name of existing projects.
This looks like if you want to steal ideas, presenting work of others as own work.
It even is problematic concerning license issues I think.

But I don't want to emphasize license-stuff, as I think more important are hurt feelings of those, who started the initial projects.
People start a project, don't get money for it - so all they get is some honour for their work by others. For this reason they identify with the name, they gave to that project.

I think it would be a good sense of respect and collegiality to use names for new projects, that are unique and avoid confusion.

Mark

[klhrevolutionist]

I do not know why you assume that I created the PuppyLinux-Foundation website or the ## irc chat for that matter. I am simply a maintainer and pr person.

Many people are simply tired and disgusted, if you wish to not acknowledge the foundation fine, if you do great.

Raffy you are right I have opinionated myself and have told that i was gonna leave the forum however, I did not give you or others that satisfaction. It is good to know that you keep tabs to bad you only remember what you want. don't worry many people have noticed this besides me hence somebody not me created a foundation of which I am proud to partake in.

FYI: I did not go behind BK's back.

[puppian]

Very well said Mark & Raffy.

somebody not me created a foundation of which I am proud to partake in.

If that 'somebody' believes what he/she has done is right, why he/she keeps his/her identity that mysterious??
FYI I don't believe there's "a group" behind that "foundation". Even if there's such "a group", I believe most people joined that "group" after that "foundation" was first started, without knowing that it's started as a "foundation clone"

if you wish to not acknowledge the foundation fine, if you do great.

If you wish to follow an imposter and acknowledge what he did fine, if you do not great. I'm going to bed now

[WhoDo]

What is the PuppyLinux Foundation?
The PuppyLinux Foundation came about as an ideal to support the (PuppyLinux 1.xx Series) which is based on the 2.4 kernel. So a group of persons decided to try and do just that. It is still in the development phase but the webpage and many support links are already up. http://www.PuppyLinux-Foundation.com/

The website maintained by the Puppy Linux Foundation is located at Puppylinux.org. The foundation's history and details can be found in THIS PAGE and THIS PAGE. Raffy was the first person who came up with the idea of a foundation for Puppy Linux in the Third Quarter of 2005. Support for Puppy Linux 1.xx Series can always be found at http://forum.puppylinux.net/ (maintained by Ted Dog).

Ok, I see the potential for this discussion to become even more divisive than it already appears it is, so I would like to make a few points and a conciliatory suggestion:

1. I don't see anywhere that Kenny has claimed authorship of Puppy - not in the articles cited or in sections misquoted elsewhere. On the contrary, he is quoted as expressing "deep gratitude to BarryK and the developers of Puppy for a wonderful distribution.(sic)"

2. The "unofficial" PuppyLinux-Foundation page has as it's first button a direct link to Puppylinux.org under the title "PuppyOS". That should certainly allay fears that they are attempting to splinter the directions and efforts of Puppy's community.

3. The fact that the "unofficial" PuppyLinux-Foundation has its own Chat and Forum facilities is clearly irrelevant. As Mark says, that's legal and supports the spreading of Puppy culture among the online community.

4. That said, the names PuppyLinux and PuppyLinux-Foundation do not seem to accord with Barry's expressed desire not to fragment efforts at promoting Puppy - either by creation of new distros, new naming conventions or otherwise. May I respectfully suggest that the "unofficial" PuppyLinux-Foundation consider a change to, say, Puppy Linux Users Group (PLUG) or similar? I don't know if that name is already spoken for, but it actually describes the aims and objectives for which the group was created, IMHO.

5. There can be NO dispute that both klhrevolutionist and Raffy have, in their own separate and unique ways, made an immeasurable contribution to the development of Puppy and derivatives as these stand today. Surely there must be a way for harmony to prevail, despite divergent viewpoints on some issues.

Puppian is clearly trying to protect the "official" channels of distributing Puppy gospel, but that shouldn't preclude other "unofficial" channels if the motives and fervor are equally favorable to Puppy.

I have not offered my viewpoint and suggestion to protract the debate; only to perhaps point to a way forward that has potential as a win-win outcome for all concerned.

Cheers

[alienjeff]

Puppian wrote:

If that 'somebody' believes what he/she has done is right, why he/she keeps his/her identity that mysterious??

Look who is calling the kettle black: someone posting as "Puppian" from "Puppyland?" Why do you keep your identity and location hidden behind fake monikers?

Puppian also wrote:

FYI I don't believe there's "a group" behind that "foundation". Even if there's such "a group", I believe most people joined that "group" after that "foundation" was first started, without knowing that it's started as a "foundation clone"

FYI, dearest Puppian, there is a considerable group behind the PuppyLinux-Foundation, of which I openly admit being a member. And you're wrong on yet another count, in that the majority of the members are charter members: they've been "a part of" since PuppyLinux-Foundation's inception. I hasten to add that all charter members contributed to the mission statement.

Just for the record, PuppyLinux-Foundation is not in competition with the "foundation that isn't a foundation."

If Barry and others were so concerned about the fragmentation of efforts in All Things Puppy, then perhaps they need to look at their own actions and how they contributed to this perceived "competition."

Puppian, why do you feel so threatened?

[raffy]

Reading from Barry's blog, Barry Kauler, Puppy's creator, said,

I cannot see the point of adding "red tape", by formally registering a non-profit organisation.

There have been some arguments in favour of a formal organisation, however I remain unconvinced of the benefit versus effort/red-tape trade-off. We already have an organisation on the Internet -- it is informal, but it works. Why make things more complicated?

I am open to further discussion on this, but my attitude at this stage is that the Puppy Community should continue to evolve in an informal manner, at least for the immediate future.

This "immediate future" spans the time that this new "foundation" started appearing. Kenneth even added its URL to the FoundationPuppy page in less than two months of Barry's announcement.

This "foundation" and its discussion is therefore inconsistent with Barry's wish to skip the issue in the "immediate future".

[alienjeff]

Barry's "wish" is just that: a wish.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Wish \Wish\, v. t.

1. To desire; to long for; to hanker after; to have a mind or
disposition toward.
[1913 Webster]

2. Expression of desire; request; petition; hence, invocation
or imprecation.
[1913 Webster]

3. A thing desired; an object of desire.
[1913 Webster]

And a "wish" is not a "dictate." Knowing the difference will serve you well.

[klhrevolutionist]

I can assure you to the best of my knowledge that the PuppyLinux-Foundation.org website was created prior to all of what you claim raffy.

[rarsa]

stop it children.

Neither of them are foundations until they provide funds. Both are unofficial from any point of view.

What about stoping the useless bickering and have fun with Puppy. Life is tough enough for us to invent new things to fight about.

[puppian]

I do not know why you assume that I created... the ## irc chat for that matter

I don't think anyone has assumed that... and now you are the first person who gives us the clue that you are the one who had created it Oh, now I truely believe Puppy has become populuar: even our foundation's IRC channels have clones!

Look who is calling the kettle black: someone posting as "Puppian" from "Puppyland?" Why do you keep your identity and location hidden behind fake monikers?

FYI, dearest alienjeff, you and anyone else can always find my identity and location in the Foundation Wiki page: http://puppylinux.org/wikka/FoundationPuppy
That information has been there since 2005.

FYI, dearest Puppian, there is a considerable group behind the PuppyLinux-Foundation

Nevermind, having a "group" doesn't necessarily mean what that "group" has done is right. Moreover, if a foundation can be faked, a group can be faked with even lesser efforts too.

Puppian, why do you feel so threatened?

I don't feel threatened. I have been tolerating those "clones" for a few months already, but not any more. I just don't think anyone should clone others' work and use that work to mislead/deceive people. Why Klh "renamed" Puppy Linux to PuppyLinux in his interview? If he's not going to start a "new" distro with that "new name", the only reason to explain that is, he wants to make people think that "PuppyLinux = Puppy Linux" and hence "PuppyLinux Foundation" = "Puppy Linux Foundation", and then "PuppyLinux-Foundation.org(com)" >= "Puppylinux.org". Yes the Foundation structure is still an informal one for now and I'm quite happy with that (As Barry mentioned in his blog: "We already have an organisation on the Internet -- it is informal, but it works."). But being informal doesn't mean you can clone it whatever way you like!
If someone can clone the foundation this way, who knows when he will set up his own version of Puppy, calling it "PuppyLinux V510a" and then makes others to believe that it is the original?

I can assure you to the best of my knowledge that the PuppyLinux-Foundation.org website was created prior to all of what you claim raffy.

That website Klh mentioned made his first debute in this forum on Oct 18, 2006:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=11921
Whois for PuppyLinux-Foundation.org and PuppyLinux-Foundation.com shows that both domaines were created on 29-Sep-2006:
http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=pu ... on&tld=org
http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=pu ... on&tld=com

Raffy first mentioned his idea of a foundation in Jul 21, 2005 and it's supported by Lobster and many other Puppy enthusiasts.
Jul 21, 2005 - http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 04683#6945
Aug 11, 2005 - http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 04683#9326
Aug 16, 2005 - http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 8562#10203

And I believe Klh knows all these pretty well. He even replied to one of those foundation threads:
Aug 22, 2005 - http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 8562#10658
So, please stop deceiving people this way

[alienjeff]

Puppian:

Take a pill and call your therapist. You're paranoid and delusional.

And a hint: if you want proof that Ken didn't start the "##" channels, get on freenode and type "/msg chanserv info ##puppylinux" and "/msg chanserv info ##puppylinux-foundation"

Stop your misdirected finger pointing.

[WhoDo]

Ok, I see the potential for this discussion to become even more divisive than it already appears it is, so I would like to make a few points and a conciliatory suggestion:
...[snip]...
I have not offered my viewpoint and suggestion to protract the debate; only to perhaps point to a way forward that has potential as a win-win outcome for all concerned.

Yes, well, clearly that was an unmitigated waste of time so on that note I'll depart the Out house and seek cooler climes.

Cheers

[MU]

I think nobody would like, if I would post here a "AlienJeff". Everybody would be annoyed by such a fake.
So why is it so difficult to understand, that a faked Puppy Linux Foundation causes protest?

The faked foundation does not represent at all the initial ideas of the Puppy foundation, as it is not visible, that most people of the (documented in the forum) meetings of #puppylinux-foundation are supporting it.
It is not clear at all, who identifies with that fake foundation.
Until today, there were only anonymous people representing it, with nicks never used before.

This is a behaviour you usually see in the context of domain-grabbing or phishing.

It was said it was created by people, who could not identify with the goals of the initial foundation.
So why do they have to fake it, and don't use an own name?

No phantasy?
Simple provocation?
Or simply not thought about it?

If the latter would be the case, it would not be difficult to clarify this issue by using a different name, right?

Mark

[puppian]

Puppian:
Take a pill and call your therapist. You're paranoid and delusional.

Thank you for your excellent example on the Ad Hominem fallacy alienjeff
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
If you continue to attack me personally, I would suggest you be banned from this forum.

WhoDo, both you and rarsa are right that we should stop the useless bickering and seek for a win-win outcome. The latter is exactly what I'm looking for. That's why I suggested Klh or author of that article to correct or delete the wrong/confusing information for us. I am mild enough that nothing about shutting down of those "clones" was ever mentioned in my first post. But people just won't listen.