Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL

News, happenings
Message
Author
brymway
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun 09 Dec 2007, 01:08

#46 Post by brymway »

I take it that this request is for the up and coming community version right? It's nobodys job to decide what will go in the standard public release except the one who is in charge of the release. And that is not us. I believe the decision has been placed on whodos shoulders for the public release.

For the community version I always like to be surprised, although they usually throw some flash in there. Maybe you should specify that it doesn't matter what the public or the users think or say, it's whodos call.

I don't ever remember Barry asking us if we liked something.

Looking forward for the finale! I am using RC4 now with my own little additions and it works great. Great job to all the developers!
[url]http://wellminded.com/puppy/pupsearch.html[/url]

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#47 Post by ttuuxxx »

brymway wrote:I take it that this request is for the up and coming community version right? It's nobodys job to decide what will go in the standard public release except the one who is in charge of the release. And that is not us. I believe the decision has been placed on whodos shoulders for the public release.

For the community version I always like to be surprised, although they usually throw some flash in there. Maybe you should specify that it doesn't matter what the public or the users think or say, it's whodos call.

I don't ever remember Barry asking us if we liked something.

Looking forward for the finale! I am using RC4 now with my own little additions and it works great. Great job to all the developers!
Yes its WhoDo's, but what is decided here is that, as soon as the final is released to I strip away the added bling and repackage it just like a regular puppy or not, by the number of results it does show a high number for it. I'll probably also do the unthinkable, remove Icewm, thats my little pride and joy that small package I made up :) but its a extra 500kb including 7 themes.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#48 Post by 01micko »

Hey ttuuxxx

Are you sure you haven't changed tack a little?

Anyhow, who cares?

If you are going to remaster a puplet count me in! I'm all for it. I love my old piece of crap 486! And I bet I've done more with it that most would bother to do :lol: I'd really love to see 4.2 run on it and I'm sure it can be done! (even with a touch of bling, added later of course!)(atm I'm doing a full install of fat_free... it's booting now! Yippee, grub worked, using xorg FFS!!! was using Xvesa, cursor is up... waiting..... :lol: :lol: :lol: Oooh, JWM is up!)

Patriot would be handy to have on side. He has a real knack for optimising things and I bet he's seen this thread. :wink:

Cheers buddy

Mick
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#49 Post by ttuuxxx »

01micko wrote:Hey ttuuxxx

Are you sure you haven't changed tack a little?

Anyhow, who cares?

If you are going to remaster a puplet count me in! I'm all for it. I love my old piece of crap 486! And I bet I've done more with it that most would bother to do :lol: I'd really love to see 4.2 run on it and I'm sure it can be done! (even with a touch of bling, added later of course!)(atm I'm doing a full install of fat_free... it's booting now! Yippee, grub worked, using xorg FFS!!! was using Xvesa, cursor is up... waiting..... :lol: :lol: :lol: Oooh, JWM is up!)

Patriot would be handy to have on side. He has a real knack for optimising things and I bet he's seen this thread. :wink:

Cheers buddy

Mick
I'll be editing the sfs file in the iso, not a remaster, because I'm not going to use remax or the built in puppy remaster script, I'm surgically going to remove the software. That should be a more stable way of doing it. In the past there have been issues etc. I think its the best way to go. I'll also make you a stripped down version mick for your little 486 :) but we'll have to talk about whats needed for it :)
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#50 Post by 01micko »

ttuuxxx wrote:
I'll be editing the sfs file in the iso, not a remaster, because I'm not going to use remax or the built in puppy remaster script, I'm surgically going to remove the software. That should be a more stable way of doing it. In the past there have been issues etc. I think its the best way to go. I'll also make you a stripped down version mick for your little 486 :) but we'll have to talk about whats needed for it :)
ttuuxxx
Sounds good!

I'll get back to yer on what can stay and what can go on the ol' dino!

Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

brymway
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun 09 Dec 2007, 01:08

#51 Post by brymway »

86
Last edited by brymway on Mon 23 Mar 2009, 16:18, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
trapster
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon 28 Nov 2005, 23:14
Location: Maine, USA
Contact:

#52 Post by trapster »

Anybody with a "low" number of post should be carefull. It seems ttuuxxx doesn't really care what you think.

Posted: 3/20, at 23:06
ttuuxxx wrote:
Libretto100ct Why don't you take your little 36 post and take a long walk of a short pier. Here's a good one to start with, watch your first step its a doozy.
trapster
Maine, USA

Asus eeepc 1005HA PU1X-BK
Frugal install: Slacko
Currently using full install: DebianDog

User avatar
trapster
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon 28 Nov 2005, 23:14
Location: Maine, USA
Contact:

#53 Post by trapster »

placeholder
:o
trapster
Maine, USA

Asus eeepc 1005HA PU1X-BK
Frugal install: Slacko
Currently using full install: DebianDog

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#54 Post by 01micko »

marker :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#55 Post by 01micko »

Hmmmm .... Coolpup..... posts=0... input=∞
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#56 Post by ttuuxxx »

trapster wrote:Anybody with a "low" number of post should be carefull. It seems ttuuxxx doesn't really care what you think.

Posted: 3/20, at 23:06
ttuuxxx wrote:
Libretto100ct Why don't you take your little 36 post and take a long walk of a short pier. Here's a good one to start with, watch your first step its a doozy.
Trapster did you miss what Libretto100ct said to me on the previous pages, go back to where you copied that from, then move back like 2 pages and read back to it, you were only catching the ending of it, He said a lot of stuff I didn't like to me, so that was a response back to his rude comments, I've helped tones of newbeeee's all the time, don't take the numbers out context. That was just related to him only!!! nobody else, he was being a jerk, ok
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#57 Post by ttuuxxx »

brymway wrote:
Yes its WhoDo's, but what is decided here is that, as soon as the final is released to I strip away the added bling and repackage it just like a regular puppy or not, by the number of results it does show a high number for it.
So it appears that you are putting up the poll to see what others would like to see in a derivative. If that was stated at the beginning, I probably wouldn't have posted what I did. But you didn't say that. It appeared that you were taking a poll for the up and coming official release, which in that case, would have seemed less than savvy. My initial impression was that your post seemed rather divisive.

But if this is for your knowledge, for what others would like to see in a derivative that you will put together after the official release, then just in case others got the same impression as I did, perhaps you might think of adjusting your title post. :D No sense in creating any waves at a critical time in Puppy history, right? 8)
No thats not it, Originally I made this poll for WhoDo to take notice, that people didn't want extra resources being taken by bling, some have reported as high as 17% of the memory. But the numbers didn't happen on here, if we actually would of had a full turnout it would of made a difference, I had over 400 downloads of foxit pdf reader in 4 days. He had mentioned in the 4.2 bugs that 50 votes wasn't enough for him to change his mind, because the usual daily user login is like 400+. So because of that I'm prepared not to let the other users down. So I'll reduce the final, I don't really consider it a remaster, because if you were to use a remastering program to remove the bling, the system would be crippled. The new Bling has be integrated into the refresh scripts, and other scripts and they have to be edited or replaced and no remastering script can do that, they just remove what is in the package. This is a more complicated task.


Also WhoDo has stated that the retro version will have the bling turned off by default, I do believe that is because of this thread and the knowledge/input that the users have provided us all.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

mcewanw
Posts: 3169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug 2007, 10:48
Contact:

no bloat

#58 Post by mcewanw »

I voted for: no bloat, no bling. Keep adding bloat and you'll soon lose users/market.

I had already stated my opinion about such matters in another thread concerning why people still use old versions of Puppy, so I won't repeat that here; I couldn't care less how old or new the computer is, I loathe bloat (which is in any case easier to add later than to remove later). My opinion is expressed here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 569#286569

One day we will have to become responsible world citizens. The Modern Desktop: in the future their will be no room for stupid bloat and not having to maintain such extravagance will give us back some free time too! :-)

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

Re: no bloat

#59 Post by ttuuxxx »

mcewanw wrote:I voted for: no bloat, no bling. Keep adding bloat and you'll soon lose users/market.

I had already stated my opinion about such matters in another thread concerning why people still use old versions of Puppy, so I won't repeat that here; I couldn't care less how old or new the computer is, I loathe bloat (which is in any case easier to add later than to remove later). My opinion is expressed here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 569#286569

One day we will have to become responsible world citizens. The Modern Desktop: in the future their will be no room for stupid bloat and not having to maintain such extravagance will give us back some free time too! :-)
I like your way of thinking, give what is needed and let the users decide if they want to add the extras.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#60 Post by 01micko »

Hang on,

I´m all for a 4.2 with absolutely no bloat, barebones even, but WhoDo made his choice long ago for the official. You did grab his attention but not in the right way. I also know that another dev may or may not have peeved you, but let that go, no harm was intended and you know it.

I agree Jeff that maybe you should retitle this thread to get helpers for a no bling Puppy 4.2 derivative, no matter how it is made, because the title is provocative and I think you know you´ve pissed off WhoDo enough.

All the best mate and look forward to advancing!

Mick
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

Re: no bloat

#61 Post by 01micko »

mcewanw wrote:I voted for: no bloat, no bling. Keep adding bloat and you'll soon lose users/market.

I had already stated my opinion about such matters in another thread concerning why people still use old versions of Puppy, so I won't repeat that here; I couldn't care less how old or new the computer is, I loathe bloat (which is in any case easier to add later than to remove later). My opinion is expressed here:

One day we will have to become responsible world citizens. The Modern Desktop: in the future their will be no room for stupid bloat and not having to maintain such extravagance will give us back some free time too! :-)
Hereś something I cannot comprehend. Pwidgets is, and absolutely is unashamed BLING. However it doesn´t make much clang. Is it bloat? 222KB?

This thread is about BLING not BLOAT!

8)
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#62 Post by ttuuxxx »

01micko wrote:Hang on,Mick
Mick its nothing to do with Pwidgets, its more to do with the backend Conky, thats where the resources are being taken, Back in 302CE days I was against conky being installed and I was a co-coordinator, WhoDo knew from the start where I stood on Conky, I did give you a couple of alternatives about 2 weeks ago, which if you guys investigated them you'll notice they take almost no resources and the render layers on the desktop way better than conky and have a better gui, plus they it was made for plugins. It would of been a much better backend system. plus you could of used lots of prepackage plugins. and it was 1/4 the size. If you spent like 1 -2 days trying that system you would notice it would of been worth the switch. Anyways its too late now.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
floborg
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 25 Oct 2007, 12:12
Location: Fort Worth, TX

Re: Ummmm...

#63 Post by floborg »

Flash858 wrote:Call me simplistic, but how about 2 separate packages for each release?

Puppy 4.2, and Puppy 4.2B (for "bling")...

Seems like a .pet could be created for all of the extra features.

Just my $.02, adjusted for inflation...
Like EZpup? I guess there will be no EZPup 4.2.
Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick
Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz | 2 GB RAM

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

Re: no bloat

#64 Post by ttuuxxx »

01micko wrote:
mcewanw wrote:I voted for: no bloat, no bling. Keep adding bloat and you'll soon lose users/market.

I had already stated my opinion about such matters in another thread concerning why people still use old versions of Puppy, so I won't repeat that here; I couldn't care less how old or new the computer is, I loathe bloat (which is in any case easier to add later than to remove later). My opinion is expressed here:

One day we will have to become responsible world citizens. The Modern Desktop: in the future their will be no room for stupid bloat and not having to maintain such extravagance will give us back some free time too! :-)
Hereś something I cannot comprehend. Pwidgets is, and absolutely is unashamed BLING. However it doesn´t make much clang. Is it bloat? 222KB?

This thread is about BLING not BLOAT!

8)
ahhhhhhh you dropped your conky size down by a lot excellent :)
pwidgets plus the old conky was around 500kb now it 222kb must of removed a lot of comments to reduce it that much :)
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#65 Post by 01micko »

WhoDo knew from the start where I stood on Conky, I did give you a couple of alternatives about 2 weeks ago, which if you guys investigated them you'll notice they take almost no resources and the render layers on the desktop way better than conky and have a better gui, plus they it was made for plugins. It would of been a much better backend system. plus you could of used lots of prepackage plugins. and it was 1/4 the size. If you spent like 1 -2 days trying that system you would notice it would of been worth the switch. Anyways its too late now.

At the late stage of development it was too late then mate :cry:

Any how, Patriot did significantly Improve Conky, and really now, it isn´t the issue.

Isn´t the issue now to make a bling free puplet?

Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

Post Reply