(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Poor Larry and Mick.
No sooner is 5.2 out and that mad cructacean (that would be me )
is clamouring for a 5.3 direction . . .

Rather than post to them privately about plans
I thought let us post here

Possible features:

1. A more developed Quick Launch similar to this (Lucid Lit)
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 503#477503
or the one used in Linux Mint.
That might also involve an evolved Quickpet . . .

2. Automatic 'personal storage file growth'/movement into a swap file

3. Control Panel (for settings wizards etc)

4. Built from latest Woof

In effect 5.2.1 could be the Alpha of 5.3
Update: many of these features now available in Lucid 525


Puppy Lucid
Staying Frisky

I have mentioned this before but I will again.

Puppy needs to be able to install additional package to a separate sfs file or at least have the option to use the savefile or an additional sfs. I think the savefile should be used for settings only. This way all the same favourite programs could be used in various distros by simply loading the sfs at bootup.

Lobster wrote:1. A more developed Quick Launch similar to this (Lucid Lit)

Have you seen 'PupApps 1.1' by radky?

Lobster wrote:3. Control Panel (for settings wizards etc)

...or 'PupControl 1.1', also by radky?

I personally wish people would let the dust settle on new releases before talking about non-existent future versions...

01smokey, I'm sure you know this already, but maybe others don't, the 'dir2sfs' (should be in Lucid 5.2, I think), can be used to very easily build your own sfs files...

I personally use a script I made called 'pets2sfs', which extracts all pets to ./files (in the current dir)..
It hen packs them up in a .sfs file. Easy - now I have many custom sfs files that are used in all my puppies.

Some great points guys. Many thanks.

Remember Larry says here
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 371#485371

Coordinating Lucid Puppy has been one of the greatest experiences of my life

He deserves full praise for what has been achieved
Larry makes it quite clear

I will not be coordinating any more releases of Lucid Puppy.

It is quite possible for Larry to discuss what he feels should be in 5.3
and remember how flexible the process is at this stage . . .

Puppy 5.3 Wiki page
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Puppy53

Puppy Linux
Eat my dust

sc0ttman wrote:01smokey, I'm sure you know this already, but maybe others don't, the 'dir2sfs' (should be in Lucid 5.2, I think), can be used to very easily build your own sfs files...

I personally use a script I made called 'pets2sfs', which extracts all pets to ./files (in the current dir)..
It hen packs them up in a .sfs file. Easy - now I have many custom sfs files that are used in all my puppies.

Awsome dude! Was looking for just sort a script myself... Maybe you would post your script or pet it so others could use it? Just a thought.

.

I would love to see an update for installing packages, where it tracks whether certain files are already installed.

e.g.
If the same file already exists, it does not replace it (as this eats space in a save file, if it is a file that is included with Puppy).

When uninstalling, it does not remove files that existed previously (so other things do not break (e.g. when doing an install to test something out (that happens to include a lib that you already have (and is used by other programs)), then removing it for what ever reason)).

This would probably apply mostly to lib modules, etc.

Maybe this could be optional (for situations where you might be upgrading something, and it should overwrite existing files, etc)...

Just a thought...

sc0ttman wrote:I personally wish people would let the dust settle on new releases before talking about non-existent future versions...

I personally use a script I made called 'pets2sfs', which extracts all pets to ./files (in the current dir)..
It then packs them up in a .sfs file. Easy - now I have many custom sfs files that are used in all my puppies.

@sc0ttman,

1/ talking about the next release before the last one is finished is a normal part of the development improvement cycle

2/ could you publish your script somewhere please or create a pet, there are similar ones out there now, but yours has the neatest finish.

Finally, for all, a thought for 5.3:

Use it as a Developers Puppy, not another mainstream enduser puppy, it is time we had one for this specific purpose.

Such as adding all possible desktop combinations. I'll start with asking for a QT Desktop such as the eggwm which has only a 3 to 4 meg footprint and there are plenty of qt apps already around that could be "Puppyfied".

my thoughts anyway.

scsijon

There is only one thing that I see is needed. Its has been needed since I joined the forum. I have asked several times, but it "scares" everyone to the point that no-one dares to do anything about it. (BTW, this is not a dare. "Dare" is emotional...this is not.)

How about for starters we do something very, very simple. Let's have a distro that announces which set of hardware it is targeted at. And, let support them by developing and contributing with that hardware objective in mind.

Barry is very clear in what he intends WARY for. That's an objective.
From a CPU standpoint, FATDOG is clear in what its intended for. That, too, is an objective.

Puppy 5.x should take an equally supportive position and clearly describe the 'minimum" hardware configuration that the PUP is intended to run on. If Barry has already addressed the very old hardware in Retro-WARY, shouldn't Puppy 5.x state that its a middle ground between really old and 64bit current machines. "Shouldn't it be stated>"

Hope this helps.

ya well stick the last unstable branch of abiword I compiled for 5.2 in the alpha, since it was stable as hell and playdays was just tooooooooooooooooooooooooo over cautious to the point of being paranoid, like it couldn't of been removed in the next release if there were issues, which to this day is still ZERO reported, lol.
ttuuxxx

Whoa, we're at 5.3 already ... don't you think it's time to talk about 6.0?

Iguleder wrote:Whoa, we're at 5.3 already ... don't you think it's time to talk about 6.0?

we did for about 3+ months and I said it would go nowhere and well its been over 6 months and technosaurus like I said wouldn't bring it forward, hasn't. He has a great mind when it comes to things like figuring out new and innovate ways of doing things, but yet he hasn't ever finished or even started a full release, really I think he's great for bringing the latest technologies but as coordinator I don't think he has the particular focus on one task at hand ability, Kind of like me, I start something and easily get distracted on the next thing, but I do try to produce the version at hand, but techo just keeps going forward.
I'M NOT trying to put him down, he's a legend, but not a coordinator type guy, he's more of ideas type with know how. Unless 6 months isn't enough time to produce one single alpha version. Most would be focusing on the next version number after that time.
Anyways here's 24 pages talking about it and nothing else.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=59496
Like I said before, Bigbass-Joe should be coordinator
next in line, I would like to see WhoDo he's been the best at it that I've seen, But I have faith in joe he's a good guy and delivers the goods
and after that playdayz, he did well with puppy 5, I didn't see eye to eye with him on a few occasions and I think he's ego takes rule over his best judgement, Something I haven't seen in the other 2 above.

ttuuxxx

Ps jemimah I would of tossed in at number 1 or 2 but she has stated in the past that she doesn't want the roll.

What sc0ttman and smokey01 suggests sounds good to me.

To be able to do as Quickpet but instead of havingthem in pupsave one have them as portable sfs or tcz or something one can have on a media USB or HDD or whatever and use when one need and when not needed one unmount it again and when one shut down it does not grow the pupsave that should ahve as little as possible of things that is difficult to delete when once it is there.

Haha I have a cache with a stand up comedienne that was made some month ago and it reloads every time I boot up. Totally unnecessary taking up place not needed at all.

WhoDo is the MAN!!!! He should do it. I vote for HIM !!!!!!

I think gcmartin has an important point- what hardware is any particular Puppy intended to run on? Early Puppies ran well on old, low spec, computers. I've tried Lucid on my 600MHz, 256MB machine, and it runs unuseably slowly. So does the current dpup. Spup is ok, but slower than Wary 5.1.1. And that is marginally slower than Puppy 4.3.1.

Have you noticed that with cars, the models in a manufacturers range gradully get improved and bigger? Until the smallest one is so big that a new smallest model, with a new name, is introduced? Same with software.

gerry

gerry don't get me wrong now but how do you measure if it run fast or slow apart from a gut feeling? You do glxgears or some similar? Go to a site that measure browsers or what. Take time from boot to start of a typical program? Slow in what way?

No offense intented to people who hate ubuntu

But I think it is natural for Puppy 5.3 to be based on Ubuntu 11.04, yet to be released as stable build.

It would be better to focus on Puppy 6 for others

I guess, puppy would get a lot of users if it had a nice login screen like found in other distros with an option to type username and password

Just my opinion of course

Thanks for making Puppy my favourite distro, although i am jealous of Lubuntu 11 beta i tested yesterday, seems to boot faster and has a nice login interface and it works on a PC witth P3 and 128MB ram

Chris may I kindly ask about "Lubuntu 11 beta i tested yesterday, seems to boot faster and has a nice login interface and it works on a PC witth P3 and 128MB ram"

Does it boot in frugal install on NTFS or does one need to have a CD or an USB to boot it?

I don't know about the frugal thing, you can try it as a live cd or install it side by side any other OS

@Nooby- two examples of what I mean by slow. Using browser:

1- use mouse on right hand scroll bar. Does the page move smoothly, or does it move in a series of large jumps? Or, if I scroll from top to bottom in one go, do I have to sit and wait until it eventually takes one or two really big jumps?

2- Using Google. When I type into the search box, do I have to wait a couple of seconds for what I typed to appear, so that I can check it before I hit Search?

But yes, I agree, it is only subjective observation, but the examples above are conclusive enough for me. Of course the latest Lupu (or whatever it is now- I can't keep up) may go like greased lightning, but I don't feel like spending time and a cd on it, unless someone can convince me that I won't be disappointed.

EDIT: done some re-checking. It's only the Ubuntu- based ones that I tried that are that slow. The first (2009) dpup, spup099, and Wary are only subjectively (and, I think, actually) marginally slower than 4.3.1: but not enough to be annoyingly noticeable.

I did wonder whether the fact that the computer does not have a video card matters? And no NVIDIA so far as I can see. Video is looked after by circuitry on the motherboard. Could this affect display behaviour?

gerry

gerry wrote:@Nooby- two examples of what I mean by slow. Using browser:

1- use mouse on right hand scroll bar. Does the page move smoothly, or does it move in a series of large jumps? Or, if I scroll from top to bottom in one go, do I have to sit and wait until it eventually takes one or two really big jumps?

2- Using Google. When I type into the search box, do I have to wait a couple of seconds for what I typed to appear, so that I can check it before I hit Search?

But yes, I agree, it is only subjective observation, but the examples above are conclusive enough for me. Of course the latest Lupu (or whatever it is now- I can't keep up) may go like greased lightning, but I don't feel like spending time and a cd on it, unless someone can convince me that I won't be disappointed.

EDIT: done some re-checking. It's only the Ubuntu- based ones that I tried that are that slow. The first (2009) dpup, spup099, and Wary are only subjectively (and, I think, actually) marginally slower than 4.3.1: but not enough to be annoyingly noticeable.

I did wonder whether the fact that the computer does not have a video card matters? And no NVIDIA so far as I can see. Video is looked after by circuitry on the motherboard. Could this affect display behaviour?

gerry

Some of your problems could be video driver issues.
If you have to use the Visa driver, it is rock steady on anything, but not very good for accelerated functions.
Another reason is support for older hardware is being dropped by the newer Linux kernels. Newer puppies are using them.
Browser bloat is another cause.
Newer versions of browsers are bigger and require more of everything.