Should we change rox to other more beautiful ones... ?SOLVED

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
User avatar
37fleetwood
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2007, 03:25

#46 Post by 37fleetwood »

perhaps I left out the bother of having to click on the up arrow a dozen times and then click on corresponding folder icons to move from one place to another while a two paned filer lets me, with one click move between directories, saving lots of time and hassle.
another question, just how big is Thunar or PcMan? the pet for XFCE 4.6.1 is only 4.7mb.
[color=darkblue][b]Thanks!
Scott 8) [/b][/color]
[color=darkblue][size=150]I'm a PC... Without Windows[/size][/color]

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

#47 Post by ttuuxxx »

37fleetwood wrote:perhaps I left out the bother of having to click on the up arrow a dozen times and then click on corresponding folder icons to move from one place to another while a two paned filer lets me, with one click move between directories, saving lots of time and hassle.
another question, just how big is Thunar or PcMan? the pet for XFCE 4.6.1 is only 4.7mb.
rox is only 386kb including the mimes, xfce is like 12 times the size, or it only 4.3MB larger,lol thats huge. Rox plus icewm is around 1MB or rox plus jwm is around 500KB
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

bugman

#48 Post by bugman »

rox is the best, i could never go back to a two-pain file manager

:lol:

egomoney, don't you want anyone to ever have to learn ANYTHING?

:?

User avatar
Max Uglee
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat 25 Apr 2009, 06:03

#49 Post by Max Uglee »

I am sorry but I think it is worth the extra x amount of MB's to include a decent paned file manager. I think you guys are too used to something that most people aren't going to take the time to get used to. I will shut my mouth after this but please just stop claiming to be such an easy to use OS. Puppy is an OS for geeks (there are some good puplets that are easier to use). Nobody wants to edit config files manually or use a half-ass FM just because it is only 500kB. Stop concentrating on making things as tiny as possible and look at how hard is is for people to use. There is a reason that Ubuntu sticks at number 1 on distrowatch. You can say it is because they have a corporation behind them but I disagree. So do many other distros and they don't get as many hits as even Puppy. Ubuntu is easy to use and can do whatever you want it to. It is not hard to come from OS X or Windows and learn how to navigate and install things. First impressions are important. I have gotten about ten people to go over to linux and after showing them a few live cds none of them choose puppy. Rox looks like windows 3.1 and behaves like no other FM. Out of the top five distros right now 3 of them are Debian based. Debian itself, Ubuntu, and Mint. All of the top distros have an easy to use and extensive package manager. All of them have a powerful FM. All of them provide GUI's for almost everything. Puppy is great in that it can run on ancient hardware but I have gotten Crunchbang or Debian with LXDE or XFCE or Fluxbox pretty close. You just can't make an OS that is THAT small AND easy to use. At least not for everyday use. Sure it can be configured to do things the way you want but most people aren't going to sift through forums for hours to change the way something looks or to get the right .pet to make something work only to discover they need to find more pets for all of the dependencies. You guys can be very helpful and I appreciate what you have done. I love Puppy for what it is. It is a masterpiece in terms of how lightweight and powerful it is but it is not (at least out of the box) suitable for most people to use as their main desktop OS.

If you want to call it an easy to use OS focus a little more on ease of use. Listen to Ecomoney. Test it on your friends (not other linux people, I know you know people that have only used windows or mac). Get rid of rox as a FM. Make the package manager more powerful.

Otherwise, go all out and keep scalpelling away those bytes. Stick with one WM(why is it ok to have a choice of WM's but not FM's?). Don't bundle extra themes. Check out tinycore.

Please take this as constructive criticism. If not please come up with something more clever than egomoney.

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

#50 Post by brymway »

....this'll be fun......
[url]http://wellminded.com/puppy/pupsearch.html[/url]

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

#51 Post by brymway »

Your arguement is a good one. I guess I never thought to make a filer as "windows-like" as possible. I don't even consider it because of MY view of windows and mac.

I have started a thread on the abilitys and customization of rox if anyone's interested. It seems moot to string along a solved poll thread. So if you're interested, here's the link.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 597#327597
[url]http://wellminded.com/puppy/pupsearch.html[/url]

User avatar
37fleetwood
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2007, 03:25

#52 Post by 37fleetwood »

ttuuxxx wrote:
37fleetwood wrote:perhaps I left out the bother of having to click on the up arrow a dozen times and then click on corresponding folder icons to move from one place to another while a two paned filer lets me, with one click move between directories, saving lots of time and hassle.
another question, just how big is Thunar or PcMan? the pet for XFCE 4.6.1 is only 4.7mb.
rox is only 386kb including the mimes, xfce is like 12 times the size, or it only 4.3MB larger,lol thats huge. Rox plus icewm is around 1MB or rox plus jwm is around 500KB
ttuuxxx
all of XFCE is 4.7 meg, not Thunar. how big is Thunar itself? also just because Microsoft uses a 2 paned filer doesn't mean they're wrong on it being better. also this isn't about making Puppy more windows like, it's about making it function better for more people. it still seems soo simple! keep Rox, Make Thunar and PcMan available in the repositories! how much simpler can it get???
@Max Uglee:
the whole point of Puppy is to get the most bang for the least amount of space. Puppy's main thrust is toward older machines and people who don't want alot of extra stuff and are willing to put up with the inconvenience. if you have a computer that can handle a bigger system Ubuntu or one of the others will be much more full featured, Puppy will always tend toward small and light. keep in mind it needs to be small enough to run in ram on a computer with as low as 128meg of ram and some of that needs to be available for swap to work well.
[color=darkblue][b]Thanks!
Scott 8) [/b][/color]
[color=darkblue][size=150]I'm a PC... Without Windows[/size][/color]

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#53 Post by James C »

Yet another example of a seemingly innocent thread/poll hijacked by the "it's not like Windows" and "Puppy is supposed to be...." group.

Rox is light.and rock solid.As I believe Ttuuxxx posted earlier, Rox does much more than act as a file manager, such as managing the desktop icons.

Rox is small, solid and it works. In a 100mb distro those are the prime considerations.

If the alpha releases of the upcoming Puppy 4.30 are any indication the Puppy formula will be remaining the same........only improved.Puppy is not a Windows clone and hopefully will never become one.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#54 Post by James C »

@ Max Uglee

Just as a point of reference, as far as I can remember all of theofficial Barry K Pups have only had one window manager.This excludes the Community Editions and 4.20 and 4.21 , released while Barry K was away.

I believe people have listened to Ecomoney, it appears that a lot of people disagree with him though.

If someone wants Windows or Ubuntu,they need to use them.Puppy is not Windows. Puppy is not Ubuntu.

Puppy is better. And lots more fun.

User avatar
trio
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun 21 Dec 2008, 15:50
Location: अनà¥￾मोदना

#55 Post by trio »

Rox as a file manager maybe not that beautiful or even has less features than others , BUT it's also used by puppy as a desktop (puppypin), rox desktop. Is there any other thing can do those with the same or less size?

And I always want to make puppy easier to use for new users (that's my motto when making an app) but it should be the puppy way (not windows' or ubuntu's), keep it small, lightweight and off course up to date

User avatar
37fleetwood
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2007, 03:25

#56 Post by 37fleetwood »

I'm curious about the hijack comments. this thread has run it's course and the poll has ended. hijacking this thread is about the same as hijacking a parked plane. the op got his answer and now it is still being discussed in other ways. I don't feel like this thread has any real purpose that it is being hijacked from. Rox is still the topic of discussion.

as hardware gets harder to find for the older computers, and less of them are around, this topic is going to come up more and more. when is it time to move ahead of the capabilities of computers that may or may not be around anymore. I really liked the idea of updating Puppy 2, which will be ideal for older equipment and Woof, by it's very nature, will offer the option of much larger Puplets. the reality is that the main weakness Puppy has suffered from has historically been the lack of a reliable source of apps. Woof is one way of answering this deficit. I really think my solution satisfies most situations for now. Puppy comes with Rox and some work needs to be done on updating the repository with such things as PcMan and Thunar etc.. there are many way cool apps that are available through the board but not the repositories, you have to go looking for them. someone recently made a .pet of Geeqie for me which is a very cool program. Puppy could be a lot better if someone set themselves to doing the un-glamorous time consuming things that aren't getting done. there are apps that I use that are still only available in .pup form.
in the mean time, rather than trying to sway folks who obviously have no intention of being swayed just go to the forum index and search for Grey's XFCE 4.6.1 .pet and install it. it's 4.7 meg and works great. Grey puts together a great looking and very usable XFCE! best of all you get Thunar as part of the deal. also it will run Compiz :D
[color=darkblue][b]Thanks!
Scott 8) [/b][/color]
[color=darkblue][size=150]I'm a PC... Without Windows[/size][/color]

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

#57 Post by ttuuxxx »

last time I looked at xfce, which I do like, I don't like thunar what so ever, Rox is still number 1. but the rest of xfce is pretty good, as you know I did release a few xfburn packages, But when I last tried it, xfce didn't do xdg menus fully, and if thats still the case, what would you suggest then, removed something that works and is stable and replace it with some thing that fully doesn't work, do you expect people to manually create menu listings?? That would be a very large pain in the butt.
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
37fleetwood
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2007, 03:25

#58 Post by 37fleetwood »

ttuuxxx wrote:last time I looked at xfce, which I do like, I don't like thunar what so ever, Rox is still number 1. but the rest of xfce is pretty good, as you know I did release a few xfburn packages, But when I last tried it, xfce didn't do xdg menus fully, and if thats still the case, what would you suggest then, removed something that works and is stable and replace it with some thing that fully doesn't work, do you expect people to manually create menu listings?? That would be a very large pain in the butt.
ttuuxxx
again my suggestion is and has been keep Rox and simply put a .pet for PcMan or something in the repository.
[color=darkblue][b]Thanks!
Scott 8) [/b][/color]
[color=darkblue][size=150]I'm a PC... Without Windows[/size][/color]

bugman

#59 Post by bugman »

actually i am curious as to why the full rox desktop environment has never been tried in puppy [as far as i know]

User avatar
Max Uglee
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat 25 Apr 2009, 06:03

#60 Post by Max Uglee »

I am going to continue in this thread because the other is geared towared improving Rox. I wouldn't want to "hijack" it.
37fleetwood wrote:all of XFCE is 4.7 meg, not Thunar. how big is Thunar itself? also just because Microsoft uses a 2 paned filer doesn't mean they're wrong on it being better. also this isn't about making Puppy more windows like, it's about making it function better for more people. it still seems soo simple! keep Rox, Make Thunar and PcMan available in the repositories! how much simpler can it get???
Exactly, I never said replace rox completely, Just as a filer. It is great for everything else and it would still be an option as a filer.
37fleetwood wrote: @Max Uglee:
the whole point of Puppy is to get the most bang for the least amount of space. Puppy's main thrust is toward older machines and people who don't want alot of extra stuff and are willing to put up with the inconvenience. if you have a computer that can handle a bigger system Ubuntu or one of the others will be much more full featured, Puppy will always tend toward small and light. keep in mind it needs to be small enough to run in ram on a computer with as low as 128meg of ram and some of that needs to be available for swap to work well.
I understand what you are saying but the definition of old hardware is something that will always be changing. Is there a Puppy that will run on this?
Originally named the V1, the Z1 began development in 1936 by Germany's Konrad Zuse in his parents living room and today is considered the first electrical binary programmable computer. The Z1 had 64-word memory (each word contained 22 bits) and a clock speed of 1 Hz. To program the the Z1 required that the user insert punch tape into a punch tape reader and all output was also generated through punch tape.
My point is go with the times. If not the market is going to shrink exponentially. It's great to go back and update the old stuff but you have to draw the line somewhere.
brymway wrote:Your arguement is a good one. I guess I never thought to make a filer as "windows-like" as possible. I don't even consider it because of MY view of windows and mac.
You missed my point. I am talking about user friendliness, not windows-like. Two VERY different things.

As Fleetwood said it is not worth trying to sway people who are not interested in being swayed. I think a lot of you just wont except what I am saying. I will stick with boxpup which last time I checked was about 20MB smaller than the main puppy and included Rox + PCman.

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

#61 Post by ttuuxxx »

bugman wrote:actually i am curious as to why the full rox desktop environment has never been tried in puppy [as far as i know]
a lot of the plugins/addons use python, thats probably the reason .
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
37fleetwood
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2007, 03:25

#62 Post by 37fleetwood »

Max Uglee wrote:I will stick with boxpup which last time I checked was about 20MB smaller than the main puppy and included Rox + PCman.
I think we agree on most points, as it stands, there is a line beyond which computers of a certain age just will not run Puppy, at least not any of the newer Puppies.
perhaps our best solution would be to petition Grey to put PcMan into .pet form as he seems to have been able to get it working well in Boxpup which is running Open Box/Rox.
I still think much work needs to be done on getting .pups updated and .pets uploaded onto the Ibiblio servers etc.
really I use Ubuntu as my main OS and play with Puppy when I get the chance. Puppy has some great advantages but those advantages come with a few limitations.
[color=darkblue][b]Thanks!
Scott 8) [/b][/color]
[color=darkblue][size=150]I'm a PC... Without Windows[/size][/color]

User avatar
Max Uglee
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat 25 Apr 2009, 06:03

#63 Post by Max Uglee »

Yea, I use Mint for my main OS and play with various puppies here and there. I think that talking to grey about some .pets is a good idea. Then getting those up on Ibiblio would be great also.

bugman

#64 Post by bugman »

so, a couple of people who mostly use mint and ubuntu are whining about how puppy works

i use puppy exclusively, every day, all the time

leave rox alone, real puppy users love it

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

#65 Post by ttuuxxx »

I have to agree with bugman, I'm a loyal dedicated puppy user, I even went as far as to compile pcmanfm and well, it took a few new librabries, icons, naming of icons and then it wasn't all that stable. took me about 1hr to get it up and running, I was just wondering if it was any better, other than having the directory structure on the left hand side, I couldn't say it was better, or warranted a change in puppy. I always like the way Xp handled files, That's about the only good thing Microsoft ever did, well that and Office2003. Rox is really to date the only File manager that really fits it to a "T", Puppies main goal and is Size and functionality and Rox fits both.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

Post Reply