Puppy Linux 2.17 has already been released...

[iscraigh]

I appreciated Gekko and Dougal. The difference between them as I read it is that Dougal recognizes that puppy is Barry's and modifies it to suite his needs, giving back to the community @ large and giving Barry useful changes that he may or may not include in future versions. Gekko wants Barry to change how he runs puppy. I think Gekko should consider his own distro (puppy based or otherwise) much like grafpup. Then he could run with it and contribute back to the community and take from the community.

I am a happy puppy

Craig

[john biles]

I have a strange feeling that Barry K has some how found a way to digitally drug this version of Linux he calls Puppy.
As I'm Addicted and if I try and play with other versions of Linux, I don't get that same high.
I need my daily fix of Puppy to keep me going.

All I can say is that I am more excited by the propect of Puppy 3 coming out than KDE4

What screenshots and video's I've seen of KDE4 don't excite me, but this won't stop me trying it when it comes out. Also it's their vision of what a Desktop should be, so good for them.

So BARRY K do what ever you please and I like so many others on this forum, will enjoy what ever you decide to give us.

Finally Gekko as I've said privately before maybe it time for "Gekko Linux 2007" that way you could release it every year. I know you have the talent to do it, I for one would like to try what you come up with.

[Getnikar]

All I can say to the above replies is this: ROFLMAO.

I'm sorry I ever contributed anything to Puppy Linux. I did my best to make it more structured, but it's like talking to a brick wall,

Well, despite my disagreement with your argument yesterday, I am in concurrence with the above sentiment. I always look for how any project or organisation conducts itself in terms of being organised and co-ordinated, at least to some degree, before expending effort much there. I just do not have the time on something where the wheels will fall off -

- as soon as a key person leaves, because there is no system to keep it going,
- each time the environment changes, eg new protocols/technologies/kernels etc enter its environment.

I am sure there are more people than Gekko out there hoping and assuming that Puppy will co-exist with their ongoing parallel projects that depend on it. I am sure more people are going to get upset in the future, when it dawns on them that Barry is NOT running his project to cater for them. He's running it to produce something that at any point in time is a cool solution for anyone coming into linux, and maybe who have limited requirements. (Barrys statement will flesh this out I am sure.) The fact that it works somewhat beyond his scope should not be taken that there is any explicit intention in this regard by Barry.

Barrys statement that he will declare how Puppy is and is not run clearly, so there can be no complaints, is to be applauded. Its a good and probably overdue step in the right direction. Its also the fundamental task in any new project. Anyone with any understanding of Quality, and the practical benefit of intelligent use of a method (often termed 'project methodology') would know this. Its embodied in a task called something like 'Define Scope'.

[Getnikar]

Not that I am suggesting this, and I know some here equate being organised with bureaucracy (a common corporate upshot of trying to be organised).

[John Doe]

@ Getnikar & Gekko

you 2 to need double check a couple things.

this "barry is a dictator" and/or "holds the key" shit needs to stop.

there are many people here who could rebuild this project thanks to barry.

he's fathered this thing to the point where it's never going to die.

p.s. love Dilbert

[Getnikar]

this "barry is a dictator" and/or "holds the key" shit needs to stop.

Is your definition of 'sh**' something/anything you do not agree with?

[Dougal]

The fact that Barry, and you and Pizzasgood and MU all "work alone" doesn't preclude you working to resolve issues that you each understand and want solved, even if informally as in this case.

The "problem" mentioned was in having a single access to current software for download and installation. Barry is the PETget person, MU is the PSI person, Pizzasgood is the Pet-be-gone person and you, well you slipped in there because I understood you were working on underlying scripts that might have an impact. Guess I got that part wrong.

My point was that there is no such effort taking place.

I suggested a new package-management system be created a long time ago, but there was no interest in it. that is since the general attitude towards progress here is to just stumble along, trying to make little fixes and improvements, rather than start afresh (think E16 vs. E17).

Barry isn't actively developing PetGet and I don't think MU is working on PSI -- they exist and work, but there's no grand plan to get things a certain way.

And I don't care that there is no such plan. I would have preferred to get package management sorted out once and for all, since that's how I prefer to do things, but Barry works differently and its his choice.

What I don't understand is why people keep panicking about what's going on with Puppy, making all these dramatic posts, threatening to leave -- I thought we had seen the last of that when Kenny left.

Puppy is just an OS. No-one is going to die as a result of what Barry does or doesn't do.

[Dougal]

I don't want to put down Gekko, Dougal, or anyone else who has criticized me, as they all have valid points.

I wasn't criticizing. I was stating some facts. I expect people around here to be mature enough to be able to handle conflicting opinions.
The problem is that, as you can see from this thread, that is not the case -- and so you end up looking at all of us as if we were some primary-school class...

[Dougal]

All I can say to the above replies is this: ROFLMAO.

I'm sorry I ever contributed anything to Puppy Linux. I did my best to make it more structured, but it's like talking to a brick wall, except the wall gives more recognition. The bug tracker is now closed.

Barry, it's all downhill from here. Enjoy.

I don't know what "ROFLMAO" means, but I assume you are in disagreement with what people said.

So what? What has that got to do with using/contributing to Puppy?

[MU]

Dougal, don't forget Nathan
PSI is just a grafical interface, but it internally uses tools written by others.
For example one of the first versions of Nathans pkgtool.

So we could need some curious people that test newer pkgtools from the new grafpup2 for Puppy, and mabe create a .pet of it with some slight adaptions for Puppy.
Then it would be relatively easy to update PSI to use this updated version.

I think people sometimes oversee, how fast Puppy develops.
Packagemanagers in Suse or Redhat are updated once a year, or more seldom, because those distros appear in 6 month or 1 year cycles.
Puppy releases appear every 2 month.
So people might wonder: "oh a new release, but no new packagemanager?".

Another thing is, that Packagemanagers do not rely on Barry, Nathan, or me.
They are even easier to modify than for example RPM by others, as they are simple scripts, not complicated C code.
They do not rely on persons, they rely on how lazy or enthusiastic the community supports them by applying changes!
For example PSI uses code contributed by Kenneth (the mirror-script).

I often wish, my programs would be "hacked" more often by others.
I'm good in creating a basic infrastructure of a program, so you have something working to start with. But I don't have so much time, to extend them in detail then over a longer period. So I hope, we can interest more coders to contribute patches and updates.

btw., I really do appreciate all the efforts you contribute to puppy

Mark

[MU]

I don't know what "ROFLMAO" means,

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.a ... &Find=Find

Cheers, Mark

[WhoDo]

My point was that there is no such effort taking place.

Hmmm... then you wouldn't have noticed that PET packages now appear in PSI? And you wouldn't have been privy to Pizzasgood's posts about working on Pet-be-gone? And you really do have a keyhole camera in Barry's donga at Perenjori, too?

The effort is there, Dougal, if you are willing to see it in all its disjointed glory. I never suggested any "grand plan". That is simply not in the nature of Puppy's development processes. I just said there were team members working on it ... over time ... as the mood and time allows. If you want an improved package management system, why not have at it yourself? You're way beyond most with scripts, I believe. I'm sure Barry, MU, Pizzasgood and others, including myself, would be grateful if you did. Just a thought.

[joki]

i should say from the off that this is defo not a dig. im happy with pup - i just think those w/o *nix skills will likely have trouble doing moderately advanced things with puppy.

i too sympatise with Gekko. however i *hate* the full-on formal development process (ergo my 9-5 often drives me nuts) but when you have a forum area called "bugs" and encourage ppl to post and beta test (on release/final isos) then formal acknowledgement/recording of the bugs is common decency.

imo, all but one of the facets of puppy dev can be performed without a dog collar and leash. A bug tracker is essential - it's acknowledgement to the reporter (literally and in the sense of "we value our user's feedback") I've personally reported problems - there's been no official ack of the bugs so am i to assume they dont exist despite other users reporting similar? (thinking specifically of the 2.16 psubdir). 2.17 didnt work out the box in this respect so think i'll skip 217 - even though i would've liked to try and see if flash9/pupp217/opera9.22 works (another 'kinda bug' reported)

one possible reason why some regular forum members are at odds with the lack of formalism: puppy's getting too good and ppl are starting to think it's in the premier league alongside ubuntu/rh etc

[BarryK]

The bug tracker is now closed.

Yes, I expected that you would be thoroughly cheesed off and react that way. Understandable.

[alienjeff]

yes, there is a bug reporting thingy, but I have only logged in a couple of times, can't be bothered

Bug reporting thingy? Can't be bothered?

I don't want to put down Gekko ...

You may not have wanted to, but you did.

-aj

[MU]

It certainly is not good to loose engaged contributors like Gekko.
I want to thank him for all his efforts first!

But this also shows something else:
As we have no ridgid structure, Puppy will survive that he leaves.
If we would rely on the bugtracker, now we had a severe problem.

Open Source Software relies in a high degree on the feelings of the contributors.
This on the other hand makes it vulnerable to disappointed emotions.

If Gekko would be someone with structured tasks, we now had to look for someone replacing him.

So the chaotic structure shurely has some advantages, we just can carry on, and certainly will miss some contributions, but that does not stop us in the whole.

Gekko, wish you all the best, and hope one day you might revise your decision.
Mark

[T_B]

Reading this thread I guess the majority of the community likes the 2 months release cycle, I know I do. One of the features in Puppy I really like is the frugal install. Never seen
something like this in another distro, it makes backing up your system so incredibly easy.
When I used Fedora or Ubuntu I always was in doubt if it was wise to upgrade and needed to reinstall everything again. If an upgrade breaks something in Puppy, I'm up and running in a couple of minutes again.

I have installed Puppy on 2 friends' computers, and it would be nice to have a sort of stable release of Puppy with continues bug and security fixes (preferably automaticly like Ubuntu). It would be easier for me to maintain these and nice to know there still is support (with new pups/pets etc) A version like this would also very suitable to use with sfs packages.
This could be the CE version that is maintained by the community, with a release cycle of a year or so.

To summarize this: I *LOVE* the 2 months release cycle but would like to see a more stable community driven fork.

Barry keep up the good work, you and all other Puppy devs are doing a great job!

[jonyo]

Might consider ignoring the speck in others (but doubt you will ) & look in the mirror s'more.

Also (as usual..), there is so much more that was said along with the chosen words snipped, cut & pasted (& it's sooo eaazy to dooo..)..that can then mean many things (good bet outa context ), & or, be spun & twisted into whatever..

As to the theme.. "in one breath & yet in nearly the very next he"..
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 140#125765
(A wise man recently summed it up much better than I ever could: "Policy and firmness does not exclude good manners and communication between dissenting parties.")
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 833#124833

Beauty is in the eye the beholder .. of course..

btw..interesting avatar..

yes, there is a bug reporting thingy, but I have only logged in a couple of times, can't be bothered

Bug reporting thingy? Can't be bothered?

I don't want to put down Gekko ...

You may not have wanted to, but you did.

-aj

[jonyo]

So the chaotic structure shurely has some advantages

I'll say

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 337#129337
"Running Linux From a USB Flash Drive: Pure Heaven"
http://www.techsupportalert.com/flash-drive-linux.htm

I like this part
"Several of Gizmos readers had praised Puppy Linux for its clever tricks"

[Dougal]

My point was that there is no such effort taking place.

Hmmm... then you wouldn't have noticed that PET packages now appear in PSI? And you wouldn't have been privy to Pizzasgood's posts about working on Pet-be-gone? And you really do have a keyhole camera in Barry's donga at Perenjori, too?

The effort is there, Dougal, if you are willing to see it in all its disjointed glory. I never suggested any "grand plan". That is simply not in the nature of Puppy's development processes. I just said there were team members working on it ... over time ... as the mood and time allows.

Sorry, I'm still not convinced.
There might be some individuals working on it sporadically, but it's not something serious. Claiming there's a "team" working on it implies something big, as if we're working on cracking the atom or something...

If you want an improved package management system, why not have at it yourself? You're way beyond most with scripts, I believe. I'm sure Barry, MU, Pizzasgood and others, including myself, would be grateful if you did. Just a thought.

It's not possible. I am talking of changing the contents of the repository, which is why I originally suggested it before 2.00 and before 2.10. (I actually outlined how it should be done and even posted a script that would calculate dependencies, to be used when modifying the packages)