Puppy 5.3
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Broad brush strokes for now
v5.3 or v6 or Spot or not
So for now Puppy 5.3 'Spot'
Spup is the Slackware Woof build and so those interested in Spot should
concentrate on supporting Spup (Slackware)
One of our long term Pup supporters writes by email:
for example we are awaiting the 'leet' release of Slackware 13.37 which is in RC status . . .
To do list for now:
test current spup just for a taste
create and host bug tracker eg. itrack-bug-tracker
create logo
develop wiki page experience, register with raffy for access if planning to contribute to wiki
use IRC chat room as Mick makes use of this and it may be a way we keep developers in touch
v5.3 or v6 or Spot or not
So for now Puppy 5.3 'Spot'
Spup is the Slackware Woof build and so those interested in Spot should
concentrate on supporting Spup (Slackware)
One of our long term Pup supporters writes by email:
There are a lot of factors at workI would love to support Puppy 5.3 so just let me know how I can help and I'll do the best that I can.
Cheers, Ian.
for example we are awaiting the 'leet' release of Slackware 13.37 which is in RC status . . .
To do list for now:
test current spup just for a taste
create and host bug tracker eg. itrack-bug-tracker
create logo
develop wiki page experience, register with raffy for access if planning to contribute to wiki
use IRC chat room as Mick makes use of this and it may be a way we keep developers in touch
Puppy Cloud ?
The below email was written some time ago (as you can see the version of Puppy I mention.)
I haven't had a response from John Murga on the below letter as of date but, after seeing what is happening here with talks of the new Puppy going into development, I thought this is where the 'meeting of minds' will be centered and it would be a good place to mention it.
---------------- My Email To John Murga -----------------------------
Hi John...
We don’t know each other but I have been thinking on this matter for some time now‘ and was about to post the below in the Puppy tread where the new 521 is being developed and I thought, maybe I better run this idea past you to get you and your team’s thoughts on the matter before posting it as, without doubt if a ‘Cloud Puppy’ comes about, there would be no better place to have it then your website integrated with the Puppy Forum.
I have no idea if in fact you and the team are even interested in such a project? I would appreciate it if you would review the below and give it some serious consideration as I really believe the ‘Cloud’ will be the future for most (if not all) computing.
If you have not taken a look at the ‘jolicloud’ program that is now running and expanding like wildfire, please do so, it gives a good example of where cloud computing is headed and how nice it performs. I believe Puppy would even be far superior because it can offer so many derivatives and options to the end-user.
Whatever your thoughts John, I would appreciate a reply one way or the other and it was a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Regards;
>>>---Indian------>
----------------------------- What I was About To Post ------------------------
**** The Perfect Future Puppy ****
I am placing this subject here 'one time only’ because during the past development of Puppy 520, and now into 521, this tread probably draws the largest number of Puppy programmers and those interested in the development of Puppy overall.
How about a Puppy Linux that would reach into (and beyond) the known future of where computing is destine to end up?
“Cloud Computing
I haven't had a response from John Murga on the below letter as of date but, after seeing what is happening here with talks of the new Puppy going into development, I thought this is where the 'meeting of minds' will be centered and it would be a good place to mention it.
---------------- My Email To John Murga -----------------------------
Hi John...
We don’t know each other but I have been thinking on this matter for some time now‘ and was about to post the below in the Puppy tread where the new 521 is being developed and I thought, maybe I better run this idea past you to get you and your team’s thoughts on the matter before posting it as, without doubt if a ‘Cloud Puppy’ comes about, there would be no better place to have it then your website integrated with the Puppy Forum.
I have no idea if in fact you and the team are even interested in such a project? I would appreciate it if you would review the below and give it some serious consideration as I really believe the ‘Cloud’ will be the future for most (if not all) computing.
If you have not taken a look at the ‘jolicloud’ program that is now running and expanding like wildfire, please do so, it gives a good example of where cloud computing is headed and how nice it performs. I believe Puppy would even be far superior because it can offer so many derivatives and options to the end-user.
Whatever your thoughts John, I would appreciate a reply one way or the other and it was a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Regards;
>>>---Indian------>
----------------------------- What I was About To Post ------------------------
**** The Perfect Future Puppy ****
I am placing this subject here 'one time only’ because during the past development of Puppy 520, and now into 521, this tread probably draws the largest number of Puppy programmers and those interested in the development of Puppy overall.
How about a Puppy Linux that would reach into (and beyond) the known future of where computing is destine to end up?
“Cloud Computing
Re: Puppy 5.3
I have some random thoughts to add:
Also, how about some auditing on every PET and SFS? No distro is really secure without core and package auditing.
Run a few tests by yourselves. See how long it takes to compress or decompress with XZ. Then test GZIP. XZ is a lot, lot, lot slower, and the compression rate is not really that much better than GZIP. It's a bad trade-off. Like I said before, Puppy sometimes is too stingy with size and space.
Slackware uses XZ compression for package distribution because it makes sense in that specific case. They have thousands of people downloading packages from their repository all the time. In that situation, with THOUSANDS of people downloading, the small difference between XZ and GZ does save them some bandwidth, which is expensive, and you usually download and install a package only once, so the impact of waiting around longer to decompress an XZ package isn't so bad. But, for things that need to be decompressed often, XZ is a terrible idea. It will just slow things down for a ridiculous reduction in space.
One more thing, if you guys are going to insist on rxvt-unicode, at least configure it with a more readable, perhaps larger font. Another color scheme might be good, too. The way it is it looks awful, I can barely read the commands and output. And why does it have to pop up in such a small window? Since Puppy uses Rox already, why not use Roxterm? It is very customizable, looks good, I mean GOOD...
What does that mean? Will I have to migrate all my Ubuntu packages to Slackware?Lobster wrote:Here is what is known of POTENTIAL 5.3 'Spot' features:
* Built from latest Woof using a Slackware base
OK, but... why? Just for the sake of it? Small is beautiful, but sometimes I think that Puppy is bit too stingy with size/space. Is all that crunching always really necessary?Lobster wrote:Goal of under 100MB ISO
Chat? Why? What's wrong with the Pidgin SFS already available? I think that Puppy should come with as little additional software as possible, and improve on the number of optional PET/SFS packages.Lobster wrote:Transmission and Chat programs return
Secure in what sense? You know, for such a portable OS, I sorely miss support to file system encryption, including LUKS. I mean, support to /etc/fstab and /etc/crypttab, so that I can carry all this portable stuff around without fear of misplacing something or being robbed. I tested LUKS, it doesn't work. I can mount the LUKS partition manually with cryptmount (which is not included with the distro), but then the LUKS partitions are not closed and unmounted properly at shutdown.Lobster wrote:Most secure Puppy ever.
Also, how about some auditing on every PET and SFS? No distro is really secure without core and package auditing.
... to appease the scare mongers. Might as well overthrow the entire run-as-root concept, too.Lobster wrote:The firewall on by default...
Please make that optional and easy to remove. I don't want that rubbish cluttering up my system tray.Lobster wrote:Panic button, disconnect from internet
Please make that optional and easy to remove. I want to boot FAST. FAST. VERY FAST. As fast as Tiny Core Linux, maybe even faster. Please do not plant foolish speed bumps on the way of my boot.Lobster wrote:Boot menu
Iguleder wrote:Regarding 5.3 (or 6.0), the features I'm thinking about are:
- XZ compression for SFSs (good for size), with support for LZO (GREAT for "lite" or "retro" versions, very fast) and gzip (backwards compatibility, balance between size and speed, good for "normal" versions).
Please do not use XZ compression. It is a very bad idea.01micko wrote:There have been good reports about the 2.6.38 series and it does have the advantage of xz compression which has the potential for bringing down Puppy's size.. but at what cost? Methinks backward compatibility with a bunch of existing sfs. We'll see on that one, also xz will be a learning curve for me.
Run a few tests by yourselves. See how long it takes to compress or decompress with XZ. Then test GZIP. XZ is a lot, lot, lot slower, and the compression rate is not really that much better than GZIP. It's a bad trade-off. Like I said before, Puppy sometimes is too stingy with size and space.
Slackware uses XZ compression for package distribution because it makes sense in that specific case. They have thousands of people downloading packages from their repository all the time. In that situation, with THOUSANDS of people downloading, the small difference between XZ and GZ does save them some bandwidth, which is expensive, and you usually download and install a package only once, so the impact of waiting around longer to decompress an XZ package isn't so bad. But, for things that need to be decompressed often, XZ is a terrible idea. It will just slow things down for a ridiculous reduction in space.
Desktop disabled? Modern? What does that mean? Are you one of those people who mistake a computer for a picture frame and think that icons should be banned from the desktop area? Such that nobody else in the world should be given a chance to place their icons there? As if we went around with the computer on our hands telling people, "Look, look, look at how pretty my desktop area is"? Are you also one of those people who insist that Grub absolutely must have a graphical background, as if anyone ever spent any more than one or two seconds looking at that screen -- in the odd cases where it is not configured to boot straight into a working operating system? Please, explain this "modern" disabled desktop concept to me.Iguleder wrote:- xdg-user-dirs with Desktop disabled (!!!), time to get modern
Whatever is wrong with the existing JWM or Openbox taskbar? Why add all the weight of the LXDE base, just so you can change the color of the taskbar? Really? The same person who wants to use XZ because it compresses 1.2999999% more?Iguleder wrote:- LXTask, LXRandR
xbindkeys is not that cool. It is slow and awkward, I often press the shortcut (say, Win+t for terminal) and nothing happens, then I have to press it for a little bit longer, and sometimes I end up with three or four terminal windows popping up. Keyboard shortcuts work a lot better on the respective window manager. Openbox and IceWM are pretty easy to configure.Iguleder wrote:- xbindkeys and xbindkeys-config, with bindings for xlockmore, LXTask and rxvt-unicode
One more thing, if you guys are going to insist on rxvt-unicode, at least configure it with a more readable, perhaps larger font. Another color scheme might be good, too. The way it is it looks awful, I can barely read the commands and output. And why does it have to pop up in such a small window? Since Puppy uses Rox already, why not use Roxterm? It is very customizable, looks good, I mean GOOD...
I probably agree. I like retrovol, except that it won't close by itself automatically when I click elsewhere.Iguleder wrote:- volumeicon and some mixer instead of retrovol,
I really don't mind the odd extraneous window manager item in the menus. I'd much rather the menus overall were a lot, a lot, a lot better organized. And no sub-menus, please!sc0ttman wrote:- I want only 1 menu entry to 'Set Wallpaper' or 'Edit Taskbar' (etc), NOT specific to a particular WM - load up some Puppy scripts that detect the WM and run the relevant wallpaper changer, or menu config, etc
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Long term, that is beyond the period of commercial exploitation,
the Cloud will be provide by 'public service institutions', perhaps provided by DIY yourself citizen networks much like the FOSS community.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 568#378034
Gmail is a cloud service and it allows Google to sift and advertise on the basis of my data. Gmail is still more convenient than Sylpheed or the other Puppy alternatives (for me)
Twitter which I mainly use as a news feed, can be accessed from phone (when I get one) and desktop, netbook and pad (when I get one)
My Blog is in the Cloud, rather than on my personal server space. I prefer someone else to manage and pay for the server. That may change if the ads (not yet present) get out of hand.
At the moment I find no advantage to running an Office suite on line.
However this is usage of an operating system and is not integral to the design of 5.3 or Puppy 6
Talking of 5.3 (ah yes I knew this thread was about something) . . .
I am using Spup 'Elephant Rock' in preparation.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 739#474739
Excellent base. Congratulations to Barry for Woof and Mick for implementing.
It does not have 'straight to desktop' like Lucid and Wary
and no quickpet like Lucid but as an Alpha base for 5.3
it is fast, stable, usable and these facilities can be the first
'spots'
Puppy Linux
Better from start to Finish
the Cloud will be provide by 'public service institutions', perhaps provided by DIY yourself citizen networks much like the FOSS community.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 568#378034
Gmail is a cloud service and it allows Google to sift and advertise on the basis of my data. Gmail is still more convenient than Sylpheed or the other Puppy alternatives (for me)
Twitter which I mainly use as a news feed, can be accessed from phone (when I get one) and desktop, netbook and pad (when I get one)
My Blog is in the Cloud, rather than on my personal server space. I prefer someone else to manage and pay for the server. That may change if the ads (not yet present) get out of hand.
At the moment I find no advantage to running an Office suite on line.
However this is usage of an operating system and is not integral to the design of 5.3 or Puppy 6
Talking of 5.3 (ah yes I knew this thread was about something) . . .
I am using Spup 'Elephant Rock' in preparation.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 739#474739
Excellent base. Congratulations to Barry for Woof and Mick for implementing.
It does not have 'straight to desktop' like Lucid and Wary
and no quickpet like Lucid but as an Alpha base for 5.3
it is fast, stable, usable and these facilities can be the first
'spots'
Puppy Linux
Better from start to Finish
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
It means that the binaries that 5.3 usesWill I have to migrate all my Ubuntu packages to Slackware
if based on spup will come from slackware
if based on Upup from Ubuntu
and if based on dpup from Debian
5.3 will be built from a woof base decided by the main developer
which at the moment will hopefully be Mick who prefers Spup
For limited resource computersIs all that crunching always really necessary?
yes it is.
Chat will be built in allowing users direct access to the help provided on the IRC networkChat? Why?
In any sense we can offer, initially just running the browser rather than root, as user spot,Secure in what sense?
as Fatdog does
Last edited by Lobster on Tue 19 Apr 2011, 06:58, edited 1 time in total.
Glad to here chat's coming back lobster. Chat has been in puppy since puppy 1 and i was quite disappointed to see it removed in lucid. The irc chat is an excellent place to get live help and advice on your puppy problems. In my short time on there, i've seen hundreds of people get help and advice. I have also been helped there multiple times.
#puppylinux
on irc and freenode
#puppylinux
on irc and freenode
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331
Cloud only works if you can access internet. Suppose you go by railway train some 4 hour trip or on a Bus same distance at much slower pace. You are stuck to that small space and have a small Netbook or laptop and the Mobile Internet are too expensive and there is no free wifi either on board.
Then you want a normal Puppy that works outside the cloud and you can read texts and books and write emails offline and send them up later when you have access and listen to music and see videoclips and so on. It it lacks such then not much of use?
Then you want a normal Puppy that works outside the cloud and you can read texts and books and write emails offline and send them up later when you have access and listen to music and see videoclips and so on. It it lacks such then not much of use?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
- goolwa_pup
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu 29 Oct 2009, 20:31
Re: Puppy Cloud ?
For what its worth....extract the Jolicloud terms of service..sszindian wrote: If you have not taken a look at the ‘jolicloud’ program that is now running and expanding like wildfire, please do so, it gives a good example of where cloud computing is headed and how nice it performs. I believe Puppy would even be far superior because it can offer so many derivatives and options to the end-user.
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Jolicloud Services. By uploading, submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Jolicloud Services, you grant Jolicloud a worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
just because your paranoid does not mean they are not after you
- ttuuxxx
- Posts: 11171
- Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
- Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Hi Micko
I would be willing to support this release, My thoughts on it are as such.
I would like to see it puppy based but slackware compatible. I tried talking to playdayz about it before with Upup, but he took the simple yet bloated approach and used Ubuntu packages.
Puppy never needed all those extra gnome deps until Upup went main stream. Seriously we are talking a great deal of bloat. I like a slim and trim puppy that gives you more functionality than bloat.
as long as the following libs are the same GlibC,Gcc,Gtk,glib,pango,cairo,poppler,jpg,png
Then it should be almost 100% compatible and about 10% smaller
ttuuxxx
I would be willing to support this release, My thoughts on it are as such.
I would like to see it puppy based but slackware compatible. I tried talking to playdayz about it before with Upup, but he took the simple yet bloated approach and used Ubuntu packages.
Puppy never needed all those extra gnome deps until Upup went main stream. Seriously we are talking a great deal of bloat. I like a slim and trim puppy that gives you more functionality than bloat.
as long as the following libs are the same GlibC,Gcc,Gtk,glib,pango,cairo,poppler,jpg,png
Then it should be almost 100% compatible and about 10% smaller
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
Just a question: why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working? Is it just because the devs got board of ubuntu and think slackware would be fun to try? Is it because there is an option in woof? After this version is out, are we going to switch to T2? Let's just decide what is best for USERS and stick with it.
[url=https://github.com/noryb009/lick/releases/latest]LICK - Install Puppy Linux from Windows[/url]
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working?
Developers are users. Anyone wishing to develop Dpup, Upup or LucidWhat about Debian...?
are free to do so.
A developer is able to offer time, effort, expertise
and fun to others.
Those willing to facilitate, help, test. compile, support
etc. are part of the fun.
5.3
Puppy keeps making packages from packages that somebody made mostly from Dedian in the first place... Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to consider going 'DIRECT' with Debian?
Iguleder's Puppy Incidious 002 would be a good choice for starting a Puppy 5.3, it already has a good foundation in development and (in my view) is one of the fastest, one of the nicest, looking Puppy's to date and besides... didn't Iguleder already commit to helping on 5.3? one would certainly think that a plus !
Again... just my thoughts but for sure, we'll take whatever 5.3 offers!
>>>---Indian------>
Iguleder's Puppy Incidious 002 would be a good choice for starting a Puppy 5.3, it already has a good foundation in development and (in my view) is one of the fastest, one of the nicest, looking Puppy's to date and besides... didn't Iguleder already commit to helping on 5.3? one would certainly think that a plus !
Again... just my thoughts but for sure, we'll take whatever 5.3 offers!
>>>---Indian------>
- Iguleder
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 09:36
- Location: Israel, somewhere in the beautiful desert
- Contact:
Insidious is a nice puplet for adventurous people, but it cannot be mainstream unless you freeze the packages and that's something you can do easily. The problem is that a puplet built with today's packages won't work with Debian Sid's packages tomorrow.
(And by the way: I made 001, the awesome fanbase made 002)
To be honest, I don't like this woofization - I think T2 is the best way to go for Puppy, but Slackware is definitely the best choice if we go the Woof way. Slackware packages are almost the same as T2 packages, except the extra dependencies which aren't a big issue.
I don't like all this whining and endless discussions about which distro is a better base, so I just go with my ideas and turn them into actions - I got glibc's package as small as 7 MB in my tweaked T2 and it's building X at the moment. I aim at 80-90 MB with Calf Linux 005
Once I'm done with this T2 build I'll try to build a tpup ... if anyone wants to experiment with this path for 5.3 or 6.0, just jump on board. I'll upload the T2 I used, my patches, all packages and all sources, plus files for Woof. This is how uPup evolved into Lupu, isn't it?
(And by the way: I made 001, the awesome fanbase made 002)
To be honest, I don't like this woofization - I think T2 is the best way to go for Puppy, but Slackware is definitely the best choice if we go the Woof way. Slackware packages are almost the same as T2 packages, except the extra dependencies which aren't a big issue.
I don't like all this whining and endless discussions about which distro is a better base, so I just go with my ideas and turn them into actions - I got glibc's package as small as 7 MB in my tweaked T2 and it's building X at the moment. I aim at 80-90 MB with Calf Linux 005
Once I'm done with this T2 build I'll try to build a tpup ... if anyone wants to experiment with this path for 5.3 or 6.0, just jump on board. I'll upload the T2 I used, my patches, all packages and all sources, plus files for Woof. This is how uPup evolved into Lupu, isn't it?
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]
Hello,
One of the worst things I ever read was, "Puppy Linux, based on Ubuntu, "
Agreed word for word...I think T2 is the best way to go for Puppy, but Slackware is definitely the best choice if we go the Woof way.
One of the worst things I ever read was, "Puppy Linux, based on Ubuntu, "
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
I don't have much experience of Linux. But let me make a brief comment on this
"Let's just decide what is best for USERS and stick with it."
My experience is that Linux Devs always go for what is best for the Dev.
And that is maybe the only way to do it or it would be a payed job and not fun at all.
Way back in 2006 I also thought that Linux Devs was into making the best Linux for the "Users" but that seems to get it all wrong. But maybe this is a derail?
for this thread we have to keep it what is most likely to keep the Devs motivation. Don't talk about users or they quickly lose interest in it.
"Let's just decide what is best for USERS and stick with it."
My experience is that Linux Devs always go for what is best for the Dev.
And that is maybe the only way to do it or it would be a payed job and not fun at all.
Way back in 2006 I also thought that Linux Devs was into making the best Linux for the "Users" but that seems to get it all wrong. But maybe this is a derail?
for this thread we have to keep it what is most likely to keep the Devs motivation. Don't talk about users or they quickly lose interest in it.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
Hi all,
Ok, from responses since my last post:
nooby, (16 April)
I'm sure seaside is the first to admit that his approach is experimental, and while it seems to me like a good idea it is really beyond the scope of an 'official' Puppy. I hope you understand.
sc0ttman, (16 April)
Your first point about 'jumping the gun'. It takes several months to put a release together. I don't even want to talk about it too much because nothing is set in stone at this stage. Well, people may not even want me as a leader. Either way, I'll continue on with what I do.
On your second,third and fourth points, version numbers go in numerical order. It makes no difference if the next release is called 526 or 1000.
On your points about window manager apps, that is a valid concern. Do you propose a solution? If so I am all ears, if not I have some ideas.
On size, well the Vesa only idea is very experimental. However i did build a 101M relatively sane BABY spup-100. Try it if you like, see the spup thread. It uses Barry's 4babybuild script (a new addition) in woof.
Conservative libs is not an option when building with binary compatibility, however, that doesn't completely mean that things can't be backwards compatiile. The aim is to have a minimum of libs necessary. Slackware compatibility does lend itself to this. So, the chances of a static compile of an app will have greater chance of working in earlier Puppies. That said, we have no control over the requirements of the big devs, (mozilla, chromium, libreoffice etc). Of course I invite (um if I'm it) all compilers to get the best bang for byte out of any app.
All users are going to want this and that, me too, but we have limits and we work within them.
stu90, (16 April)
Browser chooser was nice but I am of the opinion that we need a full featured secure browser in the disto by default. When I first used Puppy I didn't like seamonkey too much either, but I am a former netscape user and I soon realised the similarities. In Lupu there is Midori, Dillo, the nss and nspr libs, and Sylpheed. All this adds up to about 9M compressed. Current Seamonkey is about 12M compressed. I preferred Puppy 500's approach with Puppy Browser but it's too out dated now. Of course browser choosing can be in, but Seamonkey (if I have any say), is in by default. I'm sure I'll get a million detractors, but that's how I feel about it.
Iguleder, (16 April)
"new2dir" works for well for most packages.
tubeguy, (17 April)
See answer to sc0ttman up the page.
Lobster, (17 April)
Ian is most welcome to help any way he can. I think he's in Brisbane? Only a half hour drive for me.
sszindian, (17 April)
Nice thoughts! A full on Puppy cloud service! Certainly possible, jamesbond, Master_wrong et al have been doing just that. However we are concerned with the more immediate future with the next Puppy version, not to say that your idea doesn't have merit.
stu90, (18 April)
Well, I guess the cloud can be viewed from different angles.
Luluc, (19 April)
"What does that mean? Will I have to migrate all my Ubuntu packages to Slackware?" you said.
Puppy is Puppy. Binary compatibility is another thing. I would hope that some body picks up on Ubuntu woof development with Maverick or Natty. It is doable. The rationale behind Slackware development of Puppy is historical as well as personal for me. That doesn't mean to say that I am the be all and end all, Barry is yet to approve any of this. It's his Puppy.
Now to address the "xz" compression idea, yes maybe it's bad, especially for older kit. I don't want to alienate the faithful. That is where the 100MB thing comes into the equation. This is possible by removing some not so well used kernel modules and printer drivers and placing them in a "zdrv" (search it ).
I agree 100% with Lobster on chat, Xchat is only about 300K compressed, as for Transmission, well that can be an add on as far as I'm concerned. Of course more comprehensive chat programs are/will be made available.
Encryption needs to be worked on. Want a portfolio?
As for auditing of packages, currently there is no signature in 'official' packages, so that may have to be taken up with the BD.
The next valid point would be the sound mixer. Playdayz mentions this in the other 5.3 thread. Any one know of a good light weight mixer? (gtk)
Lobster, (19 April)
I agree that the 'cloud' is here and accessible. It should be an option in my opinion in any OS. I also agree about chat, see above. As for running the browser as user 'spot' (or any other user) then that can be an option too. Finer points need to be worked out but I'm sure it can be done.
goolwa_pup, (19 April)
"just because your paranoid does not mean they are not after you", you said.. true, but it made me laugh!
ttuuxxx, (19 April)
Glad to have you on board! (That's as so long as we have a vessel :;): ). good compiles I think are the key to a good, small, stable release.
noryb009, (19 April)
"why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working?", you said. Why not? We're not Ubuntu, we're not Slackware. Actually, there may be more interest in an Arch based pup. Nothing is decided yet, I'll reiterate.
SouthPaws, (19 April)
"What about Debian...?", you said. I agree, we could do that too, but I have decided (and I being me) on Slackware. I'm not the boss! I do what I want. It's fun that way. Read above about whether this is final.
sszindian, (19 April)
Debian was going to be Puppy 5 with gposil, but he had some unforeseen circumstances and had to leave. If Iguleder wants Puppy 5.3 or 6 or whatever he can have it (in the best spirit ) but I doubt he has the time or the inclination to follow it the 'woof' way.
Iguleder, (20 April)
see above
puppyluvr, (20 April)
I know you are keen, what do you want to offer?
nooby, (20 April)
Ah nooby my friend , devs are just glorified users you know
dawnsboy
What I said to puppyluvr
______________________________________________
note. I am just a bloke who knows how to use the woof build system. It's fully up to Barry and you lot if I am to coordinate a puppy version. That doesn't mean to say I don't want help! I need every ounce possible. All of your responses I have read and considered. I hope it shows!
Cheers!
Ok, from responses since my last post:
nooby, (16 April)
I'm sure seaside is the first to admit that his approach is experimental, and while it seems to me like a good idea it is really beyond the scope of an 'official' Puppy. I hope you understand.
sc0ttman, (16 April)
Your first point about 'jumping the gun'. It takes several months to put a release together. I don't even want to talk about it too much because nothing is set in stone at this stage. Well, people may not even want me as a leader. Either way, I'll continue on with what I do.
On your second,third and fourth points, version numbers go in numerical order. It makes no difference if the next release is called 526 or 1000.
On your points about window manager apps, that is a valid concern. Do you propose a solution? If so I am all ears, if not I have some ideas.
On size, well the Vesa only idea is very experimental. However i did build a 101M relatively sane BABY spup-100. Try it if you like, see the spup thread. It uses Barry's 4babybuild script (a new addition) in woof.
Conservative libs is not an option when building with binary compatibility, however, that doesn't completely mean that things can't be backwards compatiile. The aim is to have a minimum of libs necessary. Slackware compatibility does lend itself to this. So, the chances of a static compile of an app will have greater chance of working in earlier Puppies. That said, we have no control over the requirements of the big devs, (mozilla, chromium, libreoffice etc). Of course I invite (um if I'm it) all compilers to get the best bang for byte out of any app.
All users are going to want this and that, me too, but we have limits and we work within them.
stu90, (16 April)
Browser chooser was nice but I am of the opinion that we need a full featured secure browser in the disto by default. When I first used Puppy I didn't like seamonkey too much either, but I am a former netscape user and I soon realised the similarities. In Lupu there is Midori, Dillo, the nss and nspr libs, and Sylpheed. All this adds up to about 9M compressed. Current Seamonkey is about 12M compressed. I preferred Puppy 500's approach with Puppy Browser but it's too out dated now. Of course browser choosing can be in, but Seamonkey (if I have any say), is in by default. I'm sure I'll get a million detractors, but that's how I feel about it.
Iguleder, (16 April)
"new2dir" works for well for most packages.
tubeguy, (17 April)
See answer to sc0ttman up the page.
Lobster, (17 April)
Ian is most welcome to help any way he can. I think he's in Brisbane? Only a half hour drive for me.
sszindian, (17 April)
Nice thoughts! A full on Puppy cloud service! Certainly possible, jamesbond, Master_wrong et al have been doing just that. However we are concerned with the more immediate future with the next Puppy version, not to say that your idea doesn't have merit.
stu90, (18 April)
Well, I guess the cloud can be viewed from different angles.
Luluc, (19 April)
"What does that mean? Will I have to migrate all my Ubuntu packages to Slackware?" you said.
Puppy is Puppy. Binary compatibility is another thing. I would hope that some body picks up on Ubuntu woof development with Maverick or Natty. It is doable. The rationale behind Slackware development of Puppy is historical as well as personal for me. That doesn't mean to say that I am the be all and end all, Barry is yet to approve any of this. It's his Puppy.
Now to address the "xz" compression idea, yes maybe it's bad, especially for older kit. I don't want to alienate the faithful. That is where the 100MB thing comes into the equation. This is possible by removing some not so well used kernel modules and printer drivers and placing them in a "zdrv" (search it ).
I agree 100% with Lobster on chat, Xchat is only about 300K compressed, as for Transmission, well that can be an add on as far as I'm concerned. Of course more comprehensive chat programs are/will be made available.
Encryption needs to be worked on. Want a portfolio?
As for auditing of packages, currently there is no signature in 'official' packages, so that may have to be taken up with the BD.
The next valid point would be the sound mixer. Playdayz mentions this in the other 5.3 thread. Any one know of a good light weight mixer? (gtk)
Lobster, (19 April)
I agree that the 'cloud' is here and accessible. It should be an option in my opinion in any OS. I also agree about chat, see above. As for running the browser as user 'spot' (or any other user) then that can be an option too. Finer points need to be worked out but I'm sure it can be done.
goolwa_pup, (19 April)
"just because your paranoid does not mean they are not after you", you said.. true, but it made me laugh!
ttuuxxx, (19 April)
Glad to have you on board! (That's as so long as we have a vessel :;): ). good compiles I think are the key to a good, small, stable release.
noryb009, (19 April)
"why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working?", you said. Why not? We're not Ubuntu, we're not Slackware. Actually, there may be more interest in an Arch based pup. Nothing is decided yet, I'll reiterate.
SouthPaws, (19 April)
"What about Debian...?", you said. I agree, we could do that too, but I have decided (and I being me) on Slackware. I'm not the boss! I do what I want. It's fun that way. Read above about whether this is final.
sszindian, (19 April)
Debian was going to be Puppy 5 with gposil, but he had some unforeseen circumstances and had to leave. If Iguleder wants Puppy 5.3 or 6 or whatever he can have it (in the best spirit ) but I doubt he has the time or the inclination to follow it the 'woof' way.
Iguleder, (20 April)
see above
puppyluvr, (20 April)
I know you are keen, what do you want to offer?
nooby, (20 April)
Ah nooby my friend , devs are just glorified users you know
dawnsboy
What I said to puppyluvr
______________________________________________
note. I am just a bloke who knows how to use the woof build system. It's fully up to Barry and you lot if I am to coordinate a puppy version. That doesn't mean to say I don't want help! I need every ounce possible. All of your responses I have read and considered. I hope it shows!
Cheers!
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access