Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL

Message

mcewanw · #76 Post by **mcewanw** » Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:39

Microsoft lead the (bad) way ...

They purposively limited user-choice by binding IE core routines into their OS.

Puppy official forces users to use Seamonkey. But it becomes more than that: the Gecko layout/rendering engine becomes seen as a core part of Puppy so that Puppy developers can expect it to be there for further application development.

Puppy is great, no doubt about it, but no such status remains forever certain.

DSL was mentioned somewhere in the passing by zigbert (as being for embedded systems: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... start=1890). DSL certainly was/is limited and better sometimes for older systems (since using an older kernel). Yet, for most of its life it remained above Puppy in terms of overall popularity (at least if we are to believe Distrowatch). But quite suddenly really, DSL appears to be almost dead, (and look at Puppy sitting high on Distrowatch now).

But out of DSL there is born a new contender (with new kernel) arising out of the ashes of DSL's much publicised internal bickering and breakup. TC isn't high on Distrowatch as yet (such takes time) and its 10 MByte core distribution is by design no full-blown desktop at all - but the concept is there for producing Puplet like TC-based distributions to any specification required.

For now Puppy is best, but I'd hate to see it lose out through repeating any of the (on purpose) "mistakes" of Microsoft.

01micko · #77 Post by **01micko** » Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:47

mcewanw wrote:Microsoft lead the (bad) way ...

They purposively limited user-choice by binding IE core routines into their OS.

Puppy official forces users to use Seamonkey. But it becomes more than that: the Gecko layout/rendering engine becomes seen as a core part of Puppy so that Puppy developers can expect it to be there for further application development.

See your point there, but what do you suggest?

(sorry for off topic!)

mcewanw · #78 Post by **mcewanw** » Mon 23 Mar 2009, 01:12

01micko wrote: Well yes it is there by default but can be switched off in 4 clicks.
. . .
what do you suggest?

It is not enough just to disable what could/should be an optional extra. At the very least there should be a "button" which allows the user to automatically remove any such "extra" entirely

[as indeed Microsoft seems to be offering in Windows 7 when it comes to IE (not that Microsoft's compromised practice is ever the best model to follow with confidence)]

01micko · #79 Post by **01micko** » Mon 23 Mar 2009, 01:28

Like I said, not my decision, fair idea though. Maybe `pet-be-gone´ should have been included in the release but it isn´t.

WhoDo is doing what he thinks is best for Puppy. Time is the true test...

mcewanw · #80 Post by **mcewanw** » Mon 23 Mar 2009, 02:21

see next post

mcewanw · #81 Post by **mcewanw** » Mon 23 Mar 2009, 02:28

01micko wrote:Maybe `pet-be-gone´ should have been included in the release.

Yes. Such a facility is every bit as useful/important as the installation part of a package manager + repository; automated removal is every bit as key as automated installation.

The Puppy community still has to remain vigilant to the danger of treating default components as "core". If something becomes inherent (such as Gecko) and is then used by developers to create other major parts of the system, it can reach a stage where Gecko could not be removed without damaging the overall operation of much of the distribution. Microsoft always used to argue that they couldn't remove IE for exactly that reason.

There is a danger of such an effect applying to any component/application given the status of system core; hence the importance that all such components are clearly marked in some way as optional or essential.

Dasyurus · #82 Post by **Dasyurus** » Wed 25 Mar 2009, 13:31

I am a (relatively) new puppy linux user.
When I saw that screen shot of the fancy analogue clock and desktop graphical interface, I immediately thought of windows vista, and its sidebar.

Ironically, I have only hours earlier installed puppy linux 4.1.2 on a new laptop, because I was fed up with windows vista, and its various annoyances. For example it uses 1G of ram, when no extra applications are open. Also, a large percentage of older applications are incompatible.

I know a little about programming, not much (certainly nothing about linux, and I find I don't understand most of your tutorials

) but it has caused me to appreciate the simple programs which perform their function well much more than the "bling" as you call it. A nice user interface is good, to a point (which I think has already been reached).

I wouldn't complain at all if this bling was optional, and not integrated into the system itself and unable to be removed. But who really wants a fancy analogue clock on their computer?
Its almost as if computers have become a fashion accessory...

yorkiesnorkie · #83 Post by **yorkiesnorkie** » Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:01

Absolutely no bling please. Puppy is pleasant and functional.

This dressing up the desktop should be entirely optional.

Here's an example of "blinging" muddying the waters. They just deployed MS Office 2007 here, and it is one piece of &^%$*#$ garbage, but someone thought it looked pretty. When I want a word processor to resemble a tabbed web page I'll ask. Form should follow function. Deploying 07 has just slowed productivity to a crawl company wide. Nobody can find anything, the traditional menu system is gone, and the features are buried, hidden, and command key's renamed. Who needs bling? I don't.

Keep puppy doing what it does best that's why we love it.

Yorkiesnorkie

disciple · #84 Post by **disciple** » Wed 25 Mar 2009, 20:12

Deploying 07 has just slowed productivity to a crawl company wide.

At uni they spent a year studying whether to "upgrade" to Vista and 2007... in the end they went with 2007 but thankfully not Vista. Now after a year of using 2007 at uni I'm trying to avoid having my work computer upgraded to "a faster (quad core) machine more suitable for CAD", because I'm pretty sure it'll have 2007

If I do end up with 2007 I think I might use OOo.

nancy reagan · #85 Post by **nancy reagan** » Wed 25 Mar 2009, 22:29

Functionality first, then some bling

hillside · #86 Post by **hillside** » Wed 25 Mar 2009, 23:51

Office 2007

It's almost as if the people at Microsoft were thinking, "These users are getting too good at using our system. Let's really stick it to them. We'll make a completely new interface with everything in a new location so no one can find anything. Let's call it something stupid like 'The Ribbon' and make it so big it covers a third of their screen."

alex12 · #87 Post by **alex12** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 00:20

The functional part should get priority. But having a few nice themes to get new users attentions are also important. So long as it is not Ubuntu brown and does not crash when playing a video I'm fine.

Caneri · #88 Post by **Caneri** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 00:34

Cripes..I have a group of Librarians that are about to burst with frustration with Office 2007.

Not only has it caused a major mess in their daily computer tasks, it has started a very serious conversation about how to get out of the mess Office 2007 has created.

I will be surprised if 2007 survives much longer on the library computers..even after paying for legal copies...big money too.

I think Open Office will soon be getting a MUCH more serious look by many users.

Eric

EDIT: I should add that bling is good...as long as it's not the end all and do all for the OS..remember it's just eye candy. I like eye candy if it makes a user happy. If it interferes then dump it and move on. Pwidgets are really cool..keep it coming.

ecomoney · #89 Post by **ecomoney** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 01:10

Form should follow functionality, but there is no reason why it cant be attractive looking to boot! (Why do you think Apple Macs are so popular and expensive?)

Making puppy use colours when drawing the screen, instead of shades of old-looking and boring grey does not cost any extra processing time.

Pwidgets inclusion in puppy does slow it down *somewhat* on a techniclal level, but the time it saves users in being able to find their desktop shortcuts, access their wireless, etc etc and generally decreasing the time for "learning curve" more than makes up for the slightly decreased processing overhead.

Caneri · #90 Post by **Caneri** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 01:46

Hi ecomoney,

I agree...form and function are like hand and glove.

I set up a lady awhile back on her half broken, overheated machine (hd controllers were gone) using a bootable usb flash and a usb flash drive swap...she used it for about a year and then her son bought a Mac for her.

She still misses her Puppy install as she got used to a basic/understandable setup without bling...except her install was very good looking (EZPup) and in the end the lesson for me was no extras for normal users...just what works, is working enough.

Eric

#91 Post by **ttuuxxx** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 01:58

Yes all I need is nice icons and wallpaper, I have no need for nothing else,when I don't see it once I open a window. I figure if users want something add it on, like wbar or pwidgets or download a puplet with it included. etc simple. I like my system fast and stable, not waiting around for fixmenus to take a min of double of the time it used to.
ttuuxxx

alex12 · #92 Post by **alex12** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:22

ttuuxxx wrote:Yes all I need is nice icons and wallpaper, I have no need for nothing else,when I don't see it once I open a window. I figure if users want something add it on, like wbar or pwidgets or download a puplet with it included. etc simple. I like my system fast and stable, not waiting around for fixmenus to take a min of double of the time it used to.
ttuuxxx

And a nice window boarder too!

James C · #93 Post by **James C** » Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:36

The less bling the better. On my old,slow computer 4.1.2 is markedly faster in loading to the desktop than 4.2 rc4 .....seems like it takes forever to get the widgets loaded. I know they can be turned off, but I usually run live without a savefile.Got a spare partition on a faster box waiting for 4.20 to be released though.

#94 Post by **ttuuxxx** » Sun 29 Mar 2009, 06:57

here guys I made it up, download and info below

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 236#289236

ttuuxxx

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL

binding what could be optional extras into a distribution

Re: binding what could be optional extras into a distributio

Re: Is bling not bloat because just 222 kB?

sorry accidentally double posted whilst editing

stable/essential core + good package management/repository

NO BLING

Functionality first