Puppy 5.3

Message

RetroTechGuy · #241 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:01

puppyite wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:So what do you think about my idea to reduce...
You harangue me for days on end, distort my words, impugn my motives and NOW you want to be constructive?

YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS.

Puppyite, go pound sand. I'm done wasting time with you.

You have made it abundantly clear that your desire was to control the developers. But don't hold your breath...

Meanwhile, I'm going to make suggestions to the developers, for possible ideas for the next release (you will note that unlike you, I'm not demanding changes, just looking for things I think will make it easier for newbies).

We will see which strategy is more productive.

puppyite · #242 Post by **puppyite** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:05

RetroTechGuy,
At least you admit your transgressions against me, or deny them.

RetroTechGuy · #243 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:05

jonyo wrote:too many glaring issues are still going on here for puppy to be taken seriously

have fun with your next rootfest

You're absolutely right, Joyno... We really should consider making performance of a filesystem check an automagic process, that occurs on every boot.

And we should have a flag to turn it off so experts who don't want this "fscking" performed on their pupsave/lupusave/Spotsave can do so.

A corrupted filesystem is the bane of Linux newbies. Experts generally have no problem repairing them, so let's gear the boot process to protect newbies... (which will also save us work in the forums, as that complaint will be reduced)

RetroTechGuy · #244 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:07

puppyite wrote:RetroTechGuy,
At least you admit your transgressions against me.

You are absolutely right, Puppyite. The project manager and his development team should decide what the best direction for the project is. After all, they know more about the peculiarities of Puppy than we do.

jonyo · #245 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:08

RetroTechGuy wrote:just looking for things I think will make it easier for newbies).

I'd call that a solid foundation for any distro but then it means catering to the win crowd

gee i wonder if there will be opposition to that here

puppyite · #246 Post by **puppyite** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:09

RetroTechGuy wrote:You're absolutely right, Joyno... We really should consider making performance of a filesystem...

As far as you are concerned the die is cast. This is to little and too late.

jonyo · #247 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:12

RetroTechGuy wrote:You're absolutely right, Joyno... We really should consider making performance of a filesystem check an automagic process, that occurs on every boot.

And we should have a flag to turn it off so experts who don't want this "fscking" performed on their pupsave/lupusave/Spotsave can do so.

A corrupted filesystem is the bane of Linux newbies. Experts generally have no problem repairing them, so let's gear the boot process to protect newbies... (which will also save us work in the forums, as that complaint will be reduced)

sounds good and there was such a thing in the past but then there were complaints and it was removed, i don't recall an option to turn it off

took too long to boot

RetroTechGuy · #248 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:14

jonyo wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:just looking for things I think will make it easier for newbies).
I'd call that a solid foundation for any distro but then it means catering to the win crowd

gee i wonder if there will be opposition to that here

Well, in the past, the complaint was that it takes longer to boot, when you perform a fsck every time. I find that when the pupsave is not corrupted, it takes almost no time, and should be performed when it is corrupted.

But the speed of modern machines (which covers most users), and an "expert" switch to turn this feature off, should handle almost every complaint against it.

BTW, I run fsck as a default option on all of my machines... My early experience with Puppy was several rounds of lost pupsaves, before I tested it, going back to 4.12 or there-abouts, and observed that I was not getting a clean shutdown in any of the versions. This behavior eventually corrupted the filesystem to a point of unusable.

jonyo · #249 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:15

RetroTechGuy wrote:
puppyite wrote:RetroTechGuy,
At least you admit your transgressions against me.
You are absolutely right, Puppyite. The project manager and his development team should decide what the best direction for the project is. After all, they know more about the peculiarities of Puppy than we do.

perhaps if they were elected, it would be less of an issue

RetroTechGuy · #250 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:16

puppyite wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:You're absolutely right, Joyno... We really should consider making performance of a filesystem...
As far as you are concerned the die is cast. This is to little and too late.

Too little, too late? Hardly... I perform a fsck on my filesystem on every boot. It works quite well.

However, I do understand that your desire is not to contribute to this process, unless you can be the boss.

jonyo · #251 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:17

RetroTechGuy wrote:
jonyo wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:just looking for things I think will make it easier for newbies).
I'd call that a solid foundation for any distro but then it means catering to the win crowd

gee i wonder if there will be opposition to that here
Well, in the past, the complaint was that it takes longer to boot, when you perform a fsck every time. I find that when the pupsave is not corrupted, it takes almost no time, and should be performed when it is corrupted.

But the speed of modern machines (which covers most users), and an "expert" switch to turn this feature off, should handle almost every complaint against it.

BTW, I run fsck as a default option on all of my machines... My early experience with Puppy was several rounds of lost pupsaves, before I tested it, going back to 4.12 or there-abouts, and observed that I was not getting a clean shutdown in any of the versions. This behavior eventually corrupted the filesystem to a point of unusable.

I like the idea and i don't even wanna think of massive failures i ran across

RetroTechGuy · #252 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:18

jonyo wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:You're absolutely right, Joyno... We really should consider making performance of a filesystem check an automagic process, that occurs on every boot.

And we should have a flag to turn it off so experts who don't want this "fscking" performed on their pupsave/lupusave/Spotsave can do so.

A corrupted filesystem is the bane of Linux newbies. Experts generally have no problem repairing them, so let's gear the boot process to protect newbies... (which will also save us work in the forums, as that complaint will be reduced)
sounds good and there was such a thing in the past but then there were complaints and it was removed, i don't recall an option to turn it off

took too long to boot

Yes, I ran across that same complaint.

However, I'm a fan of data integrity, over speed. So if protecting my data takes a few more clock cycles, so be it.

RetroTechGuy · #253 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:21

jonyo wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:
puppyite wrote:RetroTechGuy,
At least you admit your transgressions against me.
You are absolutely right, Puppyite. The project manager and his development team should decide what the best direction for the project is. After all, they know more about the peculiarities of Puppy than we do.
perhaps if they were elected, it would be less of an issue

No-one has denied you the power or right to elect a team to create a Puppy Community Edition.

I am quite comfortable with the process currently going forward for Spot.

RetroTechGuy · #254 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:22

jonyo wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:
jonyo wrote: I'd call that a solid foundation for any distro but then it means catering to the win crowd

gee i wonder if there will be opposition to that here
Well, in the past, the complaint was that it takes longer to boot, when you perform a fsck every time. I find that when the pupsave is not corrupted, it takes almost no time, and should be performed when it is corrupted.

But the speed of modern machines (which covers most users), and an "expert" switch to turn this feature off, should handle almost every complaint against it.

BTW, I run fsck as a default option on all of my machines... My early experience with Puppy was several rounds of lost pupsaves, before I tested it, going back to 4.12 or there-abouts, and observed that I was not getting a clean shutdown in any of the versions. This behavior eventually corrupted the filesystem to a point of unusable.
I like the idea and i don't even wanna think of massive failures i ran across

Mine were at the point of: "no icons, grey screen of death"... I found all of my files from /root/ in /lost+found/...

jonyo · #255 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:27

RetroTechGuy wrote:However, I'm a fan of data integrity, over speed. So if protecting my data takes a few more clock cycles, so be it.

my problem was i went too deep into unknown territory before taking backing up seriously ..i lost that one BIG time

it all seemed soooo good ..until reality reared up, and I even needed a few wake up calls duhhh

jonyo · #256 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 19:30

forget how many multi boots i had going ~ 15 then BANG

forget why i put in a pup disk to boot up but it then went to upgrade

jonyo · #257 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 20:10

my apologies to puppyite, it was puppyluver who sent me a pm, puppyite brought it to my attention in a first pm asking about it

puppyite and i have had no other personal contact

jonyo · #258 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 20:29

RetroTechGuy wrote:BTW, I run fsck as a default option on all of my machines... My early experience with Puppy was several rounds of lost pupsaves, before I tested it, going back to 4.12 or there-abouts, and observed that I was not getting a clean shutdown in any of the versions. This behavior eventually corrupted the filesystem to a point of unusable.

a behavior that I have read about and would call inexcusable, as i understand from a normal shutdown(s) scenario

jonyo · #259 Post by **jonyo** » Mon 23 May 2011, 21:31

all is see is folks mostly coming out of the woodwork, with not much to say except making a mountain out of a molehill

RetroTechGuy wrote:
puppyite wrote:
RetroTechGuy wrote:So what do you think about my idea to reduce...
You harangue me for days on end, distort my words, impugn my motives and NOW you want to be constructive?

YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS.
Puppyite, go pound sand. I'm done wasting time with you.

You have made it abundantly clear that your desire was to control the developers. But don't hold your breath...

puppyite · #260 Post by **puppyite** » Mon 23 May 2011, 21:59

jonyo,
I’ve been receiving some PM from puppyluvr too. Presumably he hopes to propagandize me into seeing things his way, IE stop making waves.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Puppy 5.3