Puppy 4 Forever (Puppy 4.x snapshot, 3 kernels)

[abushcrafter]

In my case, I am using Puppy 4.3.1 scsi that was a test version by Barry that did not make it to prime time.
I have did a bunch of bug fixes on it and also updates.
I still have the original ISO file for it, but with all the Puppy versions out there, I can not see any sense in throwing yet another Puppy 431 version into the wild.
Am I being selfish?
Maybe...
With the modifications and updates I have made, I would probably have to do a remaster to get it all included in an ISO.
And the only remaster I have ever done back on Puppy 3.01 that ended up as a 300+ megabyte ISO!

Never mind the size!

[8-bit]

Size matters.
I would not want to make a big ISO that took 30 minutes to boot as the one I made from 301 did.
Also, I did a lot of manual mods that I did not keep track of.
So it would be remaking the ISO from scratch.
And now with vegetation going wild on my property and driveway, I have to get away from the PC to take care of it.
This is Oregon where the vegetation grows 6 inches overnight!
At least it seems to.

[abushcrafter]

Size matters.
I would not want to make a big ISO that took 30 minutes to boot as the one I made from 301 did.
Also, I did a lot of manual mods that I did not keep track of.
So it would be remaking the ISO from scratch.
And now with vegetation going wild on my property and driveway, I have to get away from the PC to take care of it.
This is Oregon where the vegetation grows 6 inches overnight!
At least it seems to.

I know it maters.I should have done a better post . I ment that it would be a good resource to have available . Another thing is those who don't what to ask aspeacialy can donwload it and have a look, without thnking about that. Infact I might have a look at it, though I doubt I will understand a thing but never mined that. I can lean to understand ! Hopfully that was a better post!

[tlchost]

I'm looking for a way to change rc.shutdown to allow me to choose whether or not I want the save file written.

I make enough mistakes installing pets that I'd rather be able to abort the save, rather than use the power switch.

I run Puppy on a bootable USB drive.

Thanks in advance.

Thom

[sc0ttman]

I'm looking for a way to change rc.shutdown to allow me to choose whether or not I want the save file written.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 738#383738

[Gurglin]

Hi!

Why did you not call your release Puppy 4ever 3.2 instead of forever 4.3.2?

Now it can be mistaken with ttuuxxx 4.3.2?

God, this 2010 is for sure the year of confusion for our beloved Puppy...

[Iguleder]

I explained why I chose 4.3.2 as the version number. I just had no choice.

In case you haven't noticed, the title does not mention either ttuxxx's 4.3.2 or "4.3.2" at all to avoid that confusion.

[Gurglin]

Hi,

Puppy does not see the SFS files i put in /mnt/home. I put there both an SFS4 and an "old" SFS, but... nothing!

Not even the SFS converter seems to work... were both standard 3.2.1 bugs?

[Iguleder]

Can you click the SFS to mount it? Do you have a save (frugal install)? Is the MD5 correct?

[tlchost]

I'm looking for a way to change rc.shutdown to allow me to choose whether or not I want the save file written.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 738#383738

Thanks....worked like a charm.....now what would be really nice giving one the opportunity to save to a different file name.

So, assuming you start with a save file named working, you could add, change, delete items and then elect to save it as working-test. I do that now...by copying working to working-test, rebooting and using working-test....the proposed change would eliminate some steps.

Thom

[tlchost]

Hi,

Puppy does not see the SFS files i put in /mnt/home. I put there both an SFS4 and an "old" SFS, but... nothing!

Not even the SFS converter seems to work... were both standard 3.2.1 bugs?

I'm using a bootable USB drive and the sfs files work fine in /mnt/home. Makew sure the tick box saying use only xxxx sfs files in not turned on. When you reboot and look at the boot setup ... are the sfs files listed?

Thom

[Iguleder]

Wow, I see people actually use this thing

I think I'm gonna do another snapshot. I think I'll include that optional saves thing ... whaddya think, guys? I think it's less user-friendly than the automatic saving thing, only experienced user would appreciate that feature.

By the way, any suggestions? Things that worked in 4.3.1 and failed here?

[tlchost]

Wow, I see people actually use this thing

Should not be surprizing....unlike the "will it ever be finished" final version, it works with few reported problems.

I think I'm gonna do another snapshot. I think I'll include that optional saves thing ... whaddya think, guys? I think it's less user-friendly than the automatic saving thing, only experienced user would appreciate that feature.

Once a user makes a mistake and overwrites their save file, they'll wish they had this option. Maybe an alternative would be to have a site where clear instructions and/or files could be downloaded for mods to your distro.

Thom

[zigbert]

I think I'm gonna do another snapshot.

Good news.
After testing too many quirkies and puppies I have returned to 4.3.1 - again........ Close to stable, within an expected size.... and as fast as we are used to.


Thank you for these builds
Sigmund

[DaveS]

I think I'm gonna do another snapshot.

Good news.
After testing too many quirkies and puppies I have returned to 4.3.1 - again........ Close to stable, within an expected size.... and as fast as we are used to.


Thank you for these builds
Sigmund

4.3 is a bit special no doubt, but I hate the filechooser bug, and the fact that I cant change screen brightness on the fly........

[zigbert]

And the Rox focus bug, which is way more serious...................

What are you pointing to


Sigmund

[Gurglin]

Wow, I see people actually use this thing

I think I'm gonna do another snapshot. I think I'll include that optional saves thing ... whaddya think, guys? I think it's less user-friendly than the automatic saving thing, only experienced user would appreciate that feature.

By the way, any suggestions? Things that worked in 4.3.1 and failed here?

I think you should work together with ttuuxxx, for avoiding doing the same work and for finishing the "never-ending" Official 4.3.2, which is risking to turn into a joke. You publish a FINAL 4.3.2 version together and then you Iguleder can develop your Puppy 4ever on top of it, a project that will probably be the reference OS for most of us, who are "allergic" to ubuntu chimeras and some others doubtful releases...

[Iguleder]

Well, I don't like the ttuxxx way of doing things, he put many custom things. I want to keep it similar to 4.3.1, as a placeholder until Puppy 6 or Wary or whatever comes out and proves to be reliable, stable and compatible like the beloved 4.3.1. If you really want, we can work on this together.

I think there's nothing wrong about disagreement, I just think Barry did great with 4.3.1 and I like my Puppy Puppy-style (ahem ahem, Lucid Puppy).

When Wary comes out I think I'll work on it and maybe make something based on it. Wary sounds really promising to me, that's probably the best contender to replace 4.3.1 for those of us that use truly old hardware.

[Roy]

probably the best contender to replace 4.3.1 for those of us that use truly old hardware.

Actually, version 4.31 is the best Puppy to date that runs on my newer netbook, so I would not automatically assume the next version would just be for the older stuff (provided that a provision is made for the proprietary Broadcom wl.ko or latest open source b43 wireless driver that supports the BCM4312 wireless card).

Looking forward to your next snapshot.

-Roy

[raffy]

"bugfixed" or "polished" 4.3.x will be a good name for what you are doing. It is what Puppy Linux really needs - keeping tradition yet moving forward.

I agree that work on Wary and long-term-supported kernel is good for the next Puppy. Barry has started work on the 2.6.27.x kernel.