Puppy is out of date ...BADLY

[april]

Puppy out of date

I started looking at the compilation dates for most of the packages in xenialpup64. 7.5

Most common is 2012 ??? 6 years ago

Is this the best we have?

[p310don]

What are you looking at?

Xenial Xerus was from 2016, so that is where many of the packages come from. That could be considered old by some measures, but I still run XP at work, so I'd reckon that's brand new.


There are quite a few newer Pups and dogs available if you look around.

[nic007]

The counter argument is of course whether the same, standard software packages that Puppy have been using for years still need updating? Personally, I reckon only the browser needs updating at relative regular intervals. I'm still using Racy and also Windows XP. Some software on my xp machine is really old but does the job perfectly. Newer is not always better (it could be worse and often is).

[Burn_IT]

We actually do not want to be using the latest and least tested stuff all the time.
Older more mature software should never be replaced with newer software that does the same job, unless there is a very good reason for it AND it has been thoroughly tested.

[musher0]

Hi April.

We actually do not want to be using the latest and least tested stuff all the time.
Older more mature software should never be replaced with newer software that does the same job, unless there is a very good reason for it AND it has been thoroughly tested.

Along the same line as Burn_IT mentioned, there is the logical aspect of
bash or more generally code structures.

We align some data in a certain way in a code structure, and it gives us
the result we want. How many other code structures can we use to get
that result? Probably not many.

For the sake of argument, let's say we have a < while...; do... ; done >
structure.

We might get the same result using say, a < until...; do... ; done >
structure if we juggle the data a bit differently.

Is it worth spending time studying and testing other ways of getting the
(same) result we want, just to modernize the date on the script?

Another example:

Code: Select all

echo "Hello world!"

Is it more useful to do it this way?

Code: Select all

echo 'Hello world!' | awk '{ print $0 }'

Nah... If it works, don't fix it. That's what I say!

IHTH. TWYL.

[Burn_IT]

Just a point;
Do While

and

Do Until

cannot be used in the same place.
The test is at a different place.

Do Until loop code will ALWAYS be executed at least once since the test is at the end.
Do While code may not be executed since the test is at the start.

[a_salty_dogg]

Is this not the way it should be, especially for those of us with older hardware? (In my case, 2001 Dell Optiplex being my most recent machine.)

I know when i've ventured into playing with other distros, Mint and Antix-MX (the latter which I and my comp really liked, btw) come to mind. Both had their installations destroyed beyond repair by untested automatic "updates" (notably by browser updates/replacements) with no apparent way of "rolling back" to the installation prior to update, despite having believed I'd backed up earlier.

So very unlike Puppy where I can test the compatibility of any new PET or script first in RAM, or, if I screw up, simply copy over a backed-up save-file to root and reboot to where I was in a matter of a couple of minutes.

Just my two pennyworth.

[mikeb]

We actually do not want to be using the latest and least tested stuff all the time.
Older more mature software should never be replaced with newer software that does the same job, unless there is a very good reason for it AND it has been thoroughly tested.

Please tell my bank that one..... bleeding browser hustling....way to sell google/MS devices.
Outside of the browser pressure if it works then don't fiddle with it.

mike

[666philb]

hi April,

which packages specifically?
most of the main apps were compiled in 2016. there's probably the odd old package from tahr .

[april]

hi April, which packages specifically?
most of the main apps were compiled in 2016. there's probably the odd old package from tahr .

Phil the binaries in /bin has mount in 2015 and all the rest in 2012 file dates

/sbin looks a lot better with 2017
/usr/bin also

Yeh I think I might have been a bit rash .
I looked at the dates in /bin and freaked .
Looking a bit deeper its only /bin in the 2012

Hey while I have you the links for "x86_64-linux-gnu" come back to the / dir as target . Is that how it should be?

[Colonel Panic]

In my experience most sites don't have a problem with older browsers (this one certainly doesn't; I'm posting this from Slackware 2.19). Two that do have such problems are youtube, which raises a fuss when I try and do anything on it with an older browser (though I can still access some of its functions and play most videos), and also my bank's website, which won't allow me to read my online bank statement in one.

Most reasonably recent Puppies will however run the latest version of Seamonkey when it's extracted to a folder such as my-applications, so there's a way around this.

[bigpup]

If it is not broken do not fix it!

But we need newer programs, that use more code to do the same thing, so Puppy will be bigger and use more RAM!

We are Puppy!
Resistance is futile!

[8Geee]

One of the things to look out for is kernel support of security internally. Browsers do their own thing (and thats a different thread), but outside of that internal OpenSSL should be capable of handling TLS1.2 with forward secrecy to be considered 'modern'. There are pets for that JIC?

One of the nit-piks I have with Slackware is the occasional revival of OpenSSL 0.9.8XX. Right now 1.0.1, 1.0.0, and 0.9.8 are all out of date, and technically unsupported (1.0.1u was last supported until 12/2017, the others 12/2016). If one is actively using a puppy, OpenSSL support is important. The most recent supported are 1.0.2o, and 1.1.0X.

In short, a 3-series kernel is needed. The smallest of those still supported is 3.2.X. Two others 3.16.X, and 3.18.X are still available, but much larger.

Regards
8Geee

[hamoudoudou]

look inside you puppy.. Woof CE date of files are trunked with date of release. but 70% of bin and sbin are from 2007 .. or not far.. but why should we use newer if these ones do what they have to do....
New version are issued by some of you, but as long as they are not entered in All ISO or Noarch PPM, they are on the fly, 'blowing in the wind', for people reading english fora.. And forgotten, unless you check the forum in the past to get them alive.
Scripters : if you would like to improve a function, please look in sbin and just modify what you need to modify.
and if your changes are accurate, ask to official staff to enter them (in woof ce or elsewhere)..

ideas :
#!/bin/sh
#2007 Lesser GPL licence v2 (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html)
#wizard to setup wireless

BUTTONS="Setup_ndiswrapper:10,Run_WAG:11,EXIT:19"

if [ "`which perl`" ];then
MSG01="GOOD: It seems that Perl is available, and Perl is needed to install the
Windows driver for the wireless card. You now have three choices:

CHOICE 1: ndiswrapper
Note that Perl is only required during installation of the driver.
Okay, that is one requirement out of two! Now, do you have the CD that came with
the wireless card? If so, click the \"Setup_ndiswrapper\" button...

[darry19662018]

I find the older packages that come with older Pups are sufficient for what I need - don't see anything in newer packages most of the time which convinces me to obsessively update except may be the browser for which Palemoon does the job nicely.

[nic007]

The inclusion of VLC in place of MPlayer in newer puppys has been an improvement. Not so sure about Palemoon over Seamonkey. Seamonkey as a suite offers more and I don't think there is much difference in size. Any reason for the switch to Palemoon?

[RetroTechGuy]

If it is not broken do not fix it!

But we need newer programs, that use more code to do the same thing, so Puppy will be bigger and use more RAM!

We are Puppy!
Resistance is futile!

Some decades ago, a buddy of mine started using the acronym "DFWATR" (diff-water)...

Code: Select all

Don't Fsck With Anything That Runs

[april]

If it is not broken do not fix it!
But we need newer programs, that use more code to do the same thing, so Puppy will be bigger and use more RAM! :shock: :roll:
We are Puppy!
Resistance is futile!

Yeh but software from 6 years ago or more?

[Burn_IT]

If it does what is needed why change it.

I once worked for a company that produced a piece of software that is used for planning large projects and we released an update every three months that mostly catered for new hardware and legal changes, but usually only included major new software once a year.

One three month cycle had no changes whatsoever, but the management made us go through the motions and release a new version that was logically identical to the previous one (perhaps a few library routines included during compiling had been updated, but those were out of our control???).
That was when I decided I didn't want to work for that company even though I did enjoy working there.

Shortly later the company went under, even though the product was successful.

[s243a]

If it is not broken do not fix it!
But we need newer programs, that use more code to do the same thing, so Puppy will be bigger and use more RAM!
We are Puppy!
Resistance is futile!

Yeh but software from 6 years ago or more?

Why not tell us which software you want updated and why?