Puppy 5.1 to 6

[Lobster]

2.15CE and 4.2x

Two great editions. Very well supported and very influential.
It is because of them that I no longer need to install icewm
- Puppy was beautified sufficiently in JWM.

Playdayz and Mick
have taken to heart my release often advice.
Lucid generated momentum and innovation very fast.
with a greater number of testers - we always welcome more

I am also confident that binaries for major programs
will be updated and provided for 5.1

I think usability is now a big factor as our usage
will increase again after release of Lucid.

Let me give you an example of non-usability
You go to shutdown your computer
You are also presented with

exit to prompt
restart JWM
and restart X

[noob hat on]
Exit to prompt - what is that?
DOS? - oh is that Linux console? rxvt?, terminal thingee?
Will I get back in?

What is JWM? Why would I want to restart it?

Restart X? What is that a porn channel?
[/noob hat]

It sounds like geek gibberish
. . . because it is . . .

Dpup had a simpler shutdown
with explanations

[WhoDo]

I've been using Puppy since 2008 and never thought of it as having Slackware 12 support

How is that apparent? Does the Puppy Package Manager go to Slackware 12 to find the packages? No puppy have their own servers and mirrors?
Sol where does the Slackware 12 support come in?

Puppy 3.x series was built with binary compatibility with Slackware 12. It also had a package acquisition program called GSlapt that would allow you to access Slackware programs for that series and use them in Puppy.

Big Bass has continued the idea with his derivative based on Puppy 4.12 release.

Bottom line: Yes there are versions of Puppy with Slackware package support.

BTW, the original version of Puppy was actually compiled on Vector Linux, a Slackware derivative.

[Minnesota]

Lobster
Official Crustacean
..........
I think usability is now a big factor as our usage
will increase again after release of Lucid.

Let me give you an example of non-usability
You go to shutdown your computer
You are also presented with ................................

In my opinion that is the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of issues.. I have commented a few times on CUPS and all the duplicate and confusing question asked... once you are used to the procedures.. it is easy to skip to what is needed.. but for someone new.. it is bewildering.

Similar for the old wireless set up.... including the load button at the top of the screen when you select a new module at the bottom of the screen.
As well as the display of the access points in the window.. yet you must click a button below... on and on.

I do not mean to disparage anyone or anything in PUPPIES... they simply are designed by programmers for Programmers.. or if you prefer developers who are familiar with the terminology.

Give a copy to a M...S person and they are completely lost with menu items such as pburn???? or Rox??? Even as in my case with forty years in this business. I understand the term file manager but rox?

Please, it is time to think of the user... and continue to clean up the puppies and make them more friendly. A lot has been done in the past few years... that is for sure.. but there is a tremendous amount more to go.

One more comment if I may. I have followed puppy for several years and played with many versions. I understand the politics, and I understand it's openness.. but as a interested person, both from the development standpoint and from the desire to give this to others... HOW in the world is anyone to keep track of all the versions and worse yet how are they to follow all the test versions.

Thanks for the FORUM... and thanks for all the hard work of everyone![/quote]

[nooby]

Minnesota, I agree with most of what you say.

But maybe not this one:

as an interested person, both from the development standpoint and from the desire to give this to others...

HOW in the world is anyone to keep track of all the versions and worse yet how are they to follow all the test versions.

Up to now there existed only one puppy and that is Barry K's official one.

But then he decided to retire and those who love puppy hoped to get nest version the community version going.

Then Barry wanted to launch Quirky 1.00

All the other puppies are derivatives that are based on Barry's pioneering work.

So there exist only one puppy and one experimental Quirky officially.
But Lucid Puppy may arrive within weeks I guess so at most three official versions.

But sure I agree it is very demanding to test all the test versions. I barely keep pace with the newly built ones. But doesn't other linux has nightly built versions too. Puppie derivatives are only more individualistic as I see it.

Every dev give them their own individual twist.

All above is only my naive take of it though. I am not a good thinker and I am rather confused about all the versions too.

But without puppy there would be no linux for me so I am very happy about all the experiments.

2006 to 2008 Puppy failed to shut down for me. Now it does shut down cleanly. I trust Puppy in the end will be what I need.

So hurray for all the experiments. As long as the devs feel good about what they do I say all the power to them.

[RetroTechGuy]

Minnesota, I agree with most of what you say.

But maybe not this one:

as an interested person, both from the development standpoint and from the desire to give this to others...

HOW in the world is anyone to keep track of all the versions and worse yet how are they to follow all the test versions.

Up to now there existed only one puppy and that is Barry K's official one.

Errr...ahhh...ummm...

Actually, there are a number of "official releases", in addition to dozens of "puplets". In the official Puppies, you'll find 2.x, 3.x, 4.x -- somewhere out there is/are 1.x version(s), but I think only a few still use it...

Like many open source project/products, it is generally best for newbies to use the "latest-greatest official/stable release" unless there is a reason not to (i.e. it doesn't work for you).

I'm planning to try 2.14/6 on my old laptop (although it did run 4.3.1 retro) -- I'm hoping for a little less hardware demand (noting that there seems to be considerable work on 2.14/6 by the gurus).

[ttuuxxx]

Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting and decide what is puppy's main goals, its always been bleeding edge but I think it might have to rethink at this. A lot of the the newer introduce bloat is Xorg/Kernel/Gnome libs.
Tell you the truth I think woof is a great idea in theory, but it does bring a lot of unnecessary weight to this small distro. It might be a case to revert back to 2 series ways, compile every app/lib from source and be independent of any other distro. Use a older kernel(like 4 series) and xorg(like 4 series) with all newer introduced series 5 gnome deps removed.
Still could use the latest Gtk2/Glib/Gcc, Basically bring it back to the magic 100MB size, I think it was wayyyyyyyyyyyy to quick to jump and badge a 130MB release as puppy 5. So maybe puppy 6 could be a rethink of the foundation. Like it has had many times before. I do commend the work that went into puppy 5, Its just too large for liking. No offense to the developers what so ever, you done a spot on job with what you had.
When My job is finished a few weeks I might look into building a new puppy from scratch if I have a team to work with, I do have a few weak spots when it comes to linux, not many but a couple. I'm no Barry but I do strive to succeed.
ttuuxxx

[zigbert]

ttuuxxx
We tend to disagree about a lot of stuff, but regarding your opinions about size and bloat, our minds work similar. - And the fact that bleeding edge doesn't mean 'stable'.

I am amazed of technosaurus' release of 4.4
I am also sure that Puppy 5.4 will amaze me


Sigmund

[Lobster]

Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting

Ttuuxxx I am happy to report that the IRC (click on desktop chat)
is now capable of supporting meetings after its recent expulsion
of those suffering from voluntary tourette syndrome
The most you might find is a lost troll
or crazy cructacean . . .

Maybe something can be arranged in a few weeks time

[ttuuxxx]

Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting

Ttuuxxx I am happy to report that the IRC (click on desktop chat)
is now capable of supporting meetings after its recent expulsion
of those suffering from voluntary tourette syndrome
The most you might find is a lost troll
or crazy cructacean . . .

Maybe something can be arranged in a few weeks time

sounds great But please keep in mind that my main goals is reduction in size, So that older computers that run Xp will fly with puppy. Bloat has infiltrated into puppy mainstream just push a next release and to make it simpler.
I'm not one those who bend to that, I've had hundreds of pm's/email from people loving my releases and that a puppy 100MB is not dead yet. At least I hope not
ttuuxxx

[Jim1911]

sounds great But please keep in mind that my main goals is reduction in size, So that older computers that run Xp will fly with puppy. Bloat has infiltrated into puppy mainstream just push a next release and to make it simpler.
I'm not one those who bend to that, I've had hundreds of pm's/email from people loving my releases and that a puppy 100MB is not dead yet. At least I hope not
ttuuxxx

Hi ttuuxxx, great to have you back on the forum, that job has really kept you busy. Other things than hobbies must take priority though. Looking forward to your new releases.

I agree that puppy should keep it's size down, for a segment of it's users, however keep in mind, that even low end systems have a fast processor with 4G of ram that can be purchased new now. That's also true of much of the used hardware, so the segment of the users that need larger distributions with up-to-date software is growing much faster than those that need the small retro distributions. Then of course there is also a growing segment that enjoy bleeding edge. It appears to me that the mainstream pup needs to be in at least three versions plus a fourth that pushes bleeding edge ie. Fatdog64.

Personally, I have three systems, two have 2G or over of ram and dual boot with Vista, the third is an old Sony Vaio laptop with only 64MB ram and even it runs the latest Quirky and Wary without a problem. The other systems can handle all the bloat that's available plus.

A new low end system will have 4G of ram and run Windows 7 as a minimum. So, should the target audience be primarily those with less than 512MB of ram? I think not, we need to target the growing population that have better hardware while still meeting the needs of all these groups and keeping all three groups pushing with up-to-date software. The reason that puppy remains high on distribution lists is that it is keeping up-to-date. Look at all the fat pup derivatives available versus the skinny pups and that's great because puppy is meeting the needs of all groups.

Welcome back, and please continue to support all of the puppy population.

Jim

[jemimah]

When My job is finished a few weeks I might look into building a new puppy from scratch if I have a team to work with, I do have a few weak spots when it comes to linux, not many but a couple. I'm no Barry but I do strive to succeed.
ttuuxxx

I can help.

[Lobster]

Guys with IRC timing - allowing for various times . . .
I would suggest you get on IRC - maybe register a name, maybe use X-chat for more facilities.

I am online sometimes with the name CrustyLobster2
So just get familiar if you are not already . . .
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/IRC

So we may set up a formal meet
or just chat as required - up to you guys . . .

[RetroTechGuy]

sounds great But please keep in mind that my main goals is reduction in size, So that older computers that run Xp will fly with puppy. Bloat has infiltrated into puppy mainstream just push a next release and to make it simpler.
I'm not one those who bend to that, I've had hundreds of pm's/email from people loving my releases and that a puppy 100MB is not dead yet. At least I hope not
ttuuxxx

I am hoping that I can find a version that is basically a drop in replacement for Windows 98 (a number of rather modest machines will run Win98, but they struggle with Puppy -- because Puppy still requires too much horsepower).

Hi ttuuxxx, great to have you back on the forum, that job has really kept you busy. Other things than hobbies must take priority though. Looking forward to your new releases.

I agree that puppy should keep it's size down, for a segment of it's users, however keep in mind, that even low end systems have a fast processor with 4G of ram that can be purchased new now.

I don't believe that a single machine I own will accept 4GB. I even doubt that any of them would accept 2GB.

My highest end machine is an older 2200 Athlon, with 1 GB. From there, my available memory (and processor speed) goes down. And I'm not going to throw them out, just to buy adequate hardware to support such an OS.

A new low end system will have 4G of ram and run Windows 7 as a minimum. So, should the target audience be primarily those with less than 512MB of ram? I think not, we need to target the growing population that have better hardware while still meeting the needs of all these groups and keeping all three groups pushing with up-to-date software. The reason that puppy remains high on distribution lists is that it is keeping up-to-date. Look at all the fat pup derivatives available versus the skinny pups and that's great because puppy is meeting the needs of all groups.

Let us not forget the mission statement shown here:

http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?fi ... tarted.htm

"Fast - Because Puppy is small, it can live in your PC's memory and be ready to quickly execute your commands, whereas in other systems, programs are first read from drive storage before being executed."

"Old PCs that no longer work with new systems will still work good-as-new with Puppy."

Here's the way I see it. As long as Puppy is compatible with the newest, greatest hardware, why would ANYONE demand that it use MORE MEMORY?

I don't really want an operating system whose hardware requirements are the same as the "big boys" (Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu, ...). And if I had such hardware, why wouldn't I just run one of those full-blown systems?

[efiguy]

Hi Group,

How about looking at Puppies by years that the drivers best support average hardware.

Create a database of stable distro's for each span segment.

- Perhaps in 3 to 5 year spans and of course there will be overlaps.

- 1995 to 1999
- 2000 to 2004
- 2004 to 2007
- 2008 to 2011
- 2012 to

- I don't know how to search for that kind of data, but could bet it is present, buried in this forum as questions and solutions.
- I feel this could tidy up historical issues.


- Although most of my hardware is 2K, with the latest of my laptops an '07, believe that Puppy must push to be able to run present day hardware, if it is to flourish, for to stay static is to die.

- If the system will support the drivers, then developers will write programs, and down the road, means will be found to use that extra ram and hardware in ways that we may never have imagined.

- This may mean that future issues of pets for this newer hardware will be in-compatible to older puppies, and that is OK, progress like it or not (Someday my '70 car will be banned from city streets;).


have a better day,
Jay

[01micko]

Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting and decide what is puppy's main goals, its always been bleeding edge but I think it might have to rethink at this. A lot of the the newer introduce bloat is Xorg/Kernel/Gnome libs.

Hi ttuuxxx,

The way I see it, the trouble is, that to run newer apps such as Google Chrome (which users want, and that is only an example) some of the bloat, for want of a better term, is necessary. We really do need to define "bloat". Anything unnecessary of course is bloat.

Also, and this is not in defence of Ubuntu, Ubuntu package equivalents to Puppy are compiled with more dependencies. This can actually be a good thing in that a user can grab Ubuntu packages from their official repos, and use them in Puppy. It is, I believe and as stated by Barry on his Woof page one of the major motivations behind Woof. Remember, woof supports Slackware, Arch and Debian too, all with good repos.

Tell you the truth I think woof is a great idea in theory, but it does bring a lot of unnecessary weight to this small distro. It might be a case to revert back to 2 series ways, compile every app/lib from source and be independent of any other distro. Use a older kernel(like 4 series) and xorg(like 4 series) with all newer introduced series 5 gnome deps removed.

Hmmm... woof is the future. You can actually build a 431 from it as it is now. Once a "distro" is built from woof, then you can recompile whatever you want and backport it.. and you can use whatever kernel is available.

Xorg is a different kettle of fish. With newer hardware come newer demands. Xorg 7.2, for example, may not support the latest and greatest. In Lucid Puppy 5 development we did come across some peculiar issues with Xorg, mostly to do with Intel chipsets. So, what to do? It seems Puppy can't support everything from a p2 with 128 meg of RAM and one of those cirrus-logic video chips and a lightening fast 8 core monster with 8 gig of ram and a video chip that could run your car at the same time! Or can it?

Still could use the latest Gtk2/Glib/Gcc, Basically bring it back to the magic 100MB size, I think it was wayyyyyyyyyyyy to quick to jump and badge a 130MB release as puppy 5. So maybe puppy 6 could be a rethink of the foundation.

Why? Not much else was happening apart from quirky, and, dpup which was bigger! Not detracting at all from techno's work with 4.4 and your work with 432. Also Kirk's and Jemimah's work, though they are not touted as "official" Puppy releases although they are "official" in the sense that Barry has given them full support.

What we need is more developers... are we going to attract them without a bone?

Lucid Puppy 5 is what it is and it's out there. Warts and all. Reviews have been mostly good. the motivation was not really creating a Puppy 5, ask playdayz, but when Barry saw us flagging at Distrowatch, wanted a release. It was the most worked on at the time, and was following Woof. It is a ground breaking release in that it showcases Woof and what can be achieved.

Like it has had many times before. I do commend the work that went into puppy 5, Its just too large for liking. No offense to the developers what so ever, you done a spot on job with what you had.
When My job is finished a few weeks I might look into building a new puppy from scratch if I have a team to work with, I do have a few weak spots when it comes to linux, not many but a couple. I'm no Barry but I do strive to succeed.
ttuuxxx

Man, we commend the work you've done around here, plenty of it . Why don't you follow woof? You can of course as you know, build a Tpup, all native Puppy, weighing in at around 100MB. Without ridiculous Gnome dependencies. . I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.

Just some thoughts, and hey, I'm barely a bash coder!

Cheers

[Lobster]

Development meeting
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/meeting30May2010/

Forum thread
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 098#421098

Agenda

Meets and greets
Reports from active Puppys
Developer Discussion
Any other business
Set next meeting
Close and thanks

[James C]

Man, we commend the work you've done around here, plenty of it . Why don't you follow woof? You can of course as you know, build a Tpup, all native Puppy, weighing in at around 100MB. Without ridiculous Gnome dependencies. . I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.

Cheers

I just happened to be running Ttuuxxx's Tpup 001 tonight.Still have it installed on my test box and other than Abiword not wanting to play nicely it would be a pretty solid starting point.Other than the 2.3.31.5 kernel it's pretty much "regular" Puppy.

There are lots of interesting possibilities in the ever-expanding Puppy universe.

[01micko]

I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.

Um, I should re-phrase that. I meant that IMO Barry is doing very-wary as more of an afterthought for those with older gear. We all know his main focus is Quirky.

There, that's better!

Cheers

[jemimah]

What we need is more developers... are we going to attract them without a bone?

What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community. It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy. And that's ok - having multiple puplets that implement different ideas is better than one compromise-puplet that doesn't do anything particularly well.

What attracted me to Puppy is the open, collaborative, community where I get to do my own thing and follow my own ideas. If I had to implement other people's ideas, I'd quickly get bored and leave.

The idea that some puplets are "official" and some are not seems like it's going to cause problems. Perhaps there's a better way to denote puplet quality and level of support that's not guaranteed to alienate people.

[ttuuxxx]

What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community. It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy.

The Community editions went pretty good, only a couple of fights, but the end results were excellent.
All we need to do is have a rough outline what the release goals are, etc and start there, maybe even have Barry lend a hand if we get stuck along the way, I'm talking about 100% from scratch. To my knowledge Barry is the only one ever to do it that way, well of course we'll reuse the puppy scripts etc, but all the apps/libs etc should be compiled.
ttuuxxx