Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 22 Dec 2014, 09:03
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Projects
Puppy Users Group ---The PUG ....
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
Page 2 of 5 Posts_count   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
myke


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 102
Location: Québec

PostPosted: Sat 04 Jun 2011, 16:21    Post_subject: My experience
Sub_title: SAmba vs. PNethood
 

When I used Windows, I set up file sharing on the family LAN, which is still being accessed by Windows, Macs and now, various Linuxes, including Puppy.

My experienced has been that without much fuss or bother, pnethood just "sees" my network and I can easily access the files from Puppy. On the other hand, with samba, I seem to be always "pulling teeth".

myke

_________________
AA1 D255E-keucr slacko 5.3;luci;mijnpup; tw-os; with:Emacs,gawk,noteboxmismanager,treesheets, freeplane, libreoffice, tkoutline, Sigil, calibre, calendar. magic&Noteliner(wine), kamas (DOS)
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 04 Jun 2011, 16:31    Post_subject:  

I really liked what member seaside came up with re using his SFS-Exec loading. It was very different from all the other such SFS loaders.

Much much faster and easy to understand for somebody as computer challenged like me.

So would be cool if some Guru help him make the best version of it and that that one was included in the main Puppy versions like Wary and and Lupu and Spup and Dpup and ArchPup and so on.

I can understand why Devs love to make use of SeamMonkey or variations of it but for me there is only Firefox latest version, Opera latest version and Chromium/SRWare Iron latest version so sure I accept SM if it is the only way to get a Puppy but then one need to teach how to make it work with having both SeaMonkey and Firefox on same Puppy.

It can be my fault but I failed on some puppyu to get it going. Delete the .mozilla I got a recommendation. Maybe that works I have not dared to test it. Maybe one can rename it instead of deleting it? Would that work.

No I am not asking here in the thread. Write a PM to me.

I post too often and have made great effort to slow down on posting so I will not start a new thread about it.

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Caneri

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 1580
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat 04 Jun 2011, 16:40    Post_subject:  

@nooby,

You are doing just fine.

Be Well in Sweden..Eric

PS...A BIG hello from Canada

_________________
Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.
Chinese Proverb

Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
gcmartin


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4507
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sat 04 Jun 2011, 23:44    Post_subject: Re: My experience
Sub_title: SAmba vs. PNethood
 

myke wrote:
When I used Windows, ... My experienced has been that without much fuss or bother, pnethood just "sees" my network and I can easily access the files from Puppy. On the other hand, with samba, I seem to be always "pulling teeth"...
Hi Myke. I agree with you on both points. Yes, we all have shared from Windows if we are Windows users. We have become accustomed or have people around us who know. And, like you, I have and do use NAS for central stores and all of my Windows, MACs and Linuxes can "see" and use the NASs.

I have tried to write an easy to use SAMBA guide last year for Pup520 and FATDOG. I am trying to re-write or create a new document for all PUPs that will make it easy to use SAMBA and make it clear for most things that we have come to enjoy in our homes with Windows.

But, to do so, we MUST get 32bit and 64bit SAMBA to be the SAME NO MATTER WHICH PUP INSTALLS IT!. We in Linux/Puppy should not have 10 different version which confuse, and with different confusing implementations, and with different confusing error messages and with different confusing Menu selection, and with different confusing terminal implementations and with different confusion library structures and no documentation that truly supports any of them. Even the document that I worked with the developer on was outdated as soon as PUP525 came out.

We are Puppy. We are proud of our Linux approach and implementation. There is NO reason, that I can come up with, that says we should be producing anything that is not class. It not difficult. I honestly believe that full SAMBA is just is in a state of neglect since WARY defined its mission target; 100MB. That target is a WARY target. And the PUP525 developers have put a stake in the ground for all of us as they professed that PUP525 is meant for newer machines (2007 and up) with at least 512MB of memory.

Every PUP that I have tested where I was able to get a functioning SAMBA has come nowhere nears 200MB even when sharing several large folders to the LAN with simultaneous access going for multimedia files. So SAMBA when running does NOT challenge or tax the system. I have posted my findings in threads over the past months.

And anyone who calls a system feature that allows the PC user to share files with its LAN as unnecessary, would/should better understand the model that ALL IT schools in the world teach. This is NOT a nice to have, it is a necessity for any present day OS. (Albeit that it can be turned off at any time if ever required)

Our current problem is that this necessary feature has NOT gotten attention as so many of us are busy with other elements.

I'm just asking for some consideration to include this basic feature as a part of the base system and am asking that it be CONSISTENT in its inclusion.

Maybe one approach should be that the next 32bit PUP replacing 525 could support PCs from 2007 with "up to 64GB RAM" and supports folder,printer,and file sharing just like all Windows and MACs while weighing in at ???MB. I'll bet most everyone would want to use the faster, more robust version of that PUP versus a smaller less robust (without the features I just mentioned)

I will not post on this topic again. I was only trying to articulate a need. I hope no one is offended.

_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engine or use DogPile
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
gcmartin


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4507
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:11    Post_subject: 4 items that could help Puppy future - Item #2  

Item #2
No user should ask for a "special" Puppy that uses ALL of his PCs RAM.

I have seen some system specs which indicate that we could be seeing PCs soon with 16-32GB RAM.

The Intel hardware is built to allow all OSes access to this memory at access rates no different whether the OS uses the hardware or NOT! When Barry started working on Puppy no one was even considering 1GB PCs. So, he didn't concern himself with including this. In WARY, his target is still low RAM older processor PCs.

Today you cannot buy a new PC with less that 1GB and all new desktops for all of my customers over the past 2 years are 3-4GB RAM. Many of us, in the forum, have already added memory to some of our platforms that exceed 4GB RAM. Its a cheap upgrade.

PUP525 is stated to be for latest PCs, but it is not currently built to take avantage of these larger RAM sizes (4GB+).

Next Puppy should cover this need without users asking.

Edited_time_total
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
puppyluvr


Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 3229
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:16    Post_subject:  

Very Happy Hello,

Quote:
I will not post on this topic again.


I sincerely hope that is not true...

OK...So far we find that a default browser, and file sharing, are big issues...

And we did this without a single negative comment.... Cool

Another big hassle for new users is Cups... No net..no printer...
How about a printer driver .sfs??? D/L the major ones and squash `em...

IDK, but I think the modular approach might be the only way to achieve a true "M$ user" friendly, yet slim and trim, Puppy...

We would have a large ISO, but a small boot footprint, maintaining some compatibility with older hardware, a Puppy must...

Can we have the main .sfs load into ram, then load and unload programs from ram as needed??? Something like a 100mb "Tinycore" on steroids??
Admittedly, I am in way "over my head".... Embarassed
Are things mnt`d in initrd in ram?? I think so, right??

Barry`s diagrams serve to confuse me as much as educate me..
(One thing is clear...The man is brilliant...)

OK, all you Puppy gurus..time to "chime in"...

Really though, full inclusion seems to me to be OK...
A 250mb Puppy, that does all, OOTB, would be OK for most users..
Feedback on that???
A Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua... Both???

Edit.. agreed about utilizing a kernel that utilizes Multi-processors and 3+ gb of ram when available... Pemasu has done great work in this area...

_________________
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
http://puppylinuxstuff.meownplanet.net/puppyluvr/
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook

Puppy since 2.15CE...

Edited_times_total
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5972
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:19    Post_subject: Re: My experience
Sub_title: SAmba vs. PNethood
 

gcmartin wrote:
And the PUP525 developers have put a stake in the ground for all of us as they professed that PUP525 is meant for newer machines (2007 and up) with at least 512MB of memory.


I'd personally like to see a link to that because, although not a developer I was heavily involved in the testing I can assure you that a very serious effort was made to ensure that Lucid 525 was small enough to load into ram from a cd boot on a machine with 256 Mb of ram thus allowing the optical drive to be freed up for other uses.
Lucid works fine on newer hardware but it's still intended to work on older hardware too.

Just to show how close the iso size margin is , I built Lucid Retro which is a whole 2 Mb larger and it will not load into ram on a 256 Mb box.Size is important.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
gcmartin


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4507
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:27    Post_subject: Re: My experience
Sub_title: SAmba vs. PNethood
 

James C wrote:
... I can assure you that a very serious effort was made to ensure that Lucid 525 was small enough to load into ram from a cd boot on a machine with 256 Mb of ram thus allowing the optical drive to be freed up for other uses. ...
Hi James C. Yes, I saw some testing that was done by several on small platforms. Some successful and some not.

Playdayz and Micko made every effort to not ignore that community. They NEVER said it wouldn't work. And they NEVER attempted to design it out of the PUP525 spectrum.

But that class PC you describe is a candidate for WARY. If it worked on PUP525, fine. But, it is a WARY candidate.

Hope this helps

_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engine or use DogPile
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5972
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:28    Post_subject:  

puppyluvr wrote:
agreed about utilizing a kernel that utilizes Multi-processors and 3+ gb of ram when available...


Not a Puppy "guru" and not wanting to be negative but the negative effect of the PAE kernel on older low-ram boxes probably should be considered.Seems to be a 4-5% increase in ram usage and it's noticeable enough I quit testing it on anything less than 1 Gb of ram.
Guess it depends on what the target machines are.
End of semi-negativity........ Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
puppyluvr


Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 3229
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:33    Post_subject:  

Very Happy Hello,
I have to say that in my mind, Wary serves the older system need quite well, as does 214x...
I agree with the above post...most machines running currently, especially laptops, are 2+gb ram machines...
So the "Saint Bernard" Puppy is a wise way to go, IMHO...
Not "bloated", just complete....

Welcome to the future, little dog..

_________________
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
http://puppylinuxstuff.meownplanet.net/puppyluvr/
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook

Puppy since 2.15CE...
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
01micko


Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 7841
Location: qld

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 00:42    Post_subject:  

Hi everybody!

I guess that raises the question James C... what do we define as 'older'? I know it is getting more difficult to build a cutting edge Puppy and still support the i486 arch. Do we leave that for Wary? Do we still have the aim of <128M iso but still enable PAE? (the 64M RAM thing gcmartin refers to)

What do people want Puppy based on?

I'm building spup.. it's fun for me but it doesn't seem too popular. I don't care about the lack of popularity, I think spup fills a niche anyway.. some people do not like Ubuntu. It just offers another choice.

Many people like the idea of those juicy Ubuntu repos.. but Maverick/Natty have proven very difficult to build using woof (Jay... Wink Rolling Eyes ). I don't know the solution to that issue but I'm sure that there is one.

Regardless of any of that, I think people are going to want Puppy to still work on their p3 coppermine with 256 RAM. Many don't read the release notes, they just see that there's a new Puppy out and well.. "let's try it!".

gcmartin.. you may be able to answer me this. What rough percentage of newer hardware that comes out with >3GB RAM that is capable of running x86_64 software? What I'm getting at is that PAE can have a detrimental effect on older slower machines and perhaps leaving 64bit arch OSes for newer gear is the way to go. Yes, I know, I know.. Wary is for older hardware but it didn't stop people testing Lupu on K6 350 MHz machines!


I'll weigh in on Fido here too. It will be popular and I think could raise Puppy's profile among the big boys. A true multiuser OS in less than 128M.. who wouldn't be impressed? (Ahem.. yes I prefer to run as root but the majority are told "don't do it, or else"..). It will be time to start a thread soon to fix fido, as Barry has other things to do.

Have fun Smile

_________________
Woof Mailing List | keep the faith Cool |
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
p310don

Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 746
Location: Brisbane, Australia

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 01:59    Post_subject:  

Hi again.

Some things I know about here, I will share.

PAE kernel on older hardware has a theoretically higher load than standard. Reality is, in my experience, it is immeasurable, and thus, almost a moot point. Has anyone else actually checked it out on old hardware?

64bit processors are the most common new processor sold. Some of the Atom processors are 32bit still, but pretty much everything else is 64bit, but works with 32bit.

64bit has some software limitations, but is catching up. 32bit, being the legacy has virtually no limits to program choice. Until 64 catches up fully, 32PAE is a great intermediate choice for newer hardware (post 2005).

I think its important to look at what Gcmartin has said in the past. There needs to be a stated market for puppy. Currently it is everything from i486 up. That's pushing 20 years of computing!! Surely in a puppy that has PAE or 64bit there is little odds of needing legacy drivers and dialup support? But that stuff is perfectly suited to Wary.

SAMBA is important for including in puppy to share stuff. But, note that Ubuntu for eg doesn't have it included by default either. (not last I checked, which is about a year ago). Full samba is good, but has a lot of stuff that may not be necessary, rcrsn51 has made a pet for SAMBA-TNG which is great at sharing with windows. It is *almost* perfect for everything. I would suggest that could be included at 1 MB rather than full samba at 40ish MB.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?search_id=1511739334&t=60204

A nice GUI for samba sharing would be great. There are a few about. Editing smb.conf isn't hard, but it is sh!t scary for windows refugees. Does anyone have a good one? There are some web based ones. Need a browser installed for that. hmmm
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
gcmartin


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4507
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 11:15    Post_subject: Using all RAM on next Official PUPPY  

Memory! RAM! Size! Performance!

These terms are consistently "batted" around inconsistently. What I mean to share is that some are using these terms improperly.

These ARE important terms. And it is easy to get discouraged when you have a traditional/advanced background in systems technology and see remarks by some in forums everywhere.

Let's zero in on Puppy. And, what I will share is NOT an absolute, because all of us can think of a "specific" where this general description does NOT cover. (This does NOT mean that if it doesn't cover the specific, that the general is wrong. Quite the contrary!)

Size. Everyone understand 100MB for WARY or 129MB for PUP525. But to some, they think that it is the amount of memory required to run the PUP. This is not and NEVER was true. To level set, it is the size of the ISO file! "Why is that important" some may ask. Its because in some parts of the world people have only unreliable dial-up internet services and thus, size here determines the elongation time it would take to get a downloaded ISO. This is important to that group of users. BUT, in no way is it what will be used in systems operation.

RAM. This is the physical memory directly addressable ("attached" so to speak) by the CPU (AMD/Intel/etc). This is hardware. The references we see today talk about PAE, a feature that was added to AMD/Intel so that programs would have access to memory beyond what was available in 486 architecture. Problem: This PAE hardware technology is NOT some sort of an "after-thought ad-on feature". It is BUILT INTO THE CPUs. This hardware function has "less than zero-impacts" on systems usage. And, further, all internal reports show that when systems are saturated by OS (software) the hardware performs better than when in non-PAE mode. This was an advancement when Pentium/K6s hit the streets. Except "old habits are hard to die" and, Yes, here in Puppyland we are still debating something that those vendors did for us about 20 years ago. Its unrealistic, but true.

Memory. This is a different area and here, I will NOT cover disk or RAM on the system, but what is happening once you boot a system. The uniqueness that Puppy provides is its stated objective of providing a "RAM-based" operation for Linux. Here, there MUST be enough RAM on the system to allow Puppy to load and turn over control to the load. Then, there also MUST be enough RAM+Swap+tmp (in Linux) available to allow system operations. Linux-Puppy when running preemptively is a very adaptable technology in how it dispatches and manages its workload. For the most part, when I look at my 512MB RAM system, I am have not found a way to saturate it in single user mode even with SAMBA running. On FATDOG, Hardinfo currently is showing 4054MB (420MB) in use (I am currently running full SAMBA sharing 180GB of storage with 7 PC on my LAN, serving Network booting to 2 PCs, running SM with a TV broadcast going and writing to this thread).

Performance. There is a PUP539 that I tested several weeks ago with SCSI. This is an extremely "snappy" implementation of PUP525 which works on large RAM PCs. I tested it on the 512MB system and its performance seems faster than PUP525. So, this can be thought of as a contribution to demonstrate that its possible to have a single "Official" PUP which runs on EVERY RAM platform from 512MB to 64GB in 32bit mode, that is fast, and a full-feature replacement for a Windows desktop.

That's something Puppyland CAN boast.
  • WARY will work on PCs with less than 256MB
  • Puppy will work on PCs with more that 512MB
  • FATDOG (which, BTW, is NOT an "Official" Puppy; Puppy does NOT have an official 64bit distro) for all things 64bit
Its boast of running in RAM and able to operate solely using a CD/DVD rewritable is very, very notable.

This community and its products have matured faster (I think) in 2011 to a level where its time to consider delivery of the next Puppy in 2011-2012 while keeping an eye on where "technology to the doorstep" is going. We should focus on doing something right not only just doing something small. I saw this when @Playdayz and @01micko proceeded with PUP525 for modern PCs. And I saw this again when @JamesBond and @Pemaus demonstrated Puppy WARY and ICE that will run on any RAM PCs. These contributors actually put a stake in the ground as a marker for us to see the way. Puppy is no longer a PUP, it is a full-grown DOG!

I realize that the topic the OP is much much broader than this post. But, I wanted everyone with comments on PAE to think about the multitude of misuse of the the terms 'memory' and 'RAM'. For those of us, who has questions or comments on the benefits of PAE (large RAM issues), maybe we can confine them there versus on this thread. There, they covered, quite in depth, the development where Puppy now has the tested technology for being used on every PC since PentiumPro.

Hope this helps.

_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engine or use DogPile

Edited_times_total
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
gcmartin


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4507
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 11:43    Post_subject:  

Full SAMBA has one primary advantage to every Puppy user: There is a huge composition of peoples all over the internet world which can help you with "full" SAMBA. SAMBA and their support has continue over the past 19 years, and has covered just about every conceivable use imaginable. They are now working on the "holy grail" so to speak as they pursue changes to overrun MS in directory management areas.

AND, please, do NOT get confused with size of download versus operational size and impact on the system. Full SAMBA is stable, actively developed and supported and secure. These people also sit at the table with the Linux architecture community as well as with CUPS. In fact, CUPS and full SAMBA are lock-step. These 2 community collaborate on ALL development.

SAMBA with ALL of its features give each of us the flexibility to allow my FATDOG/PUP to be "everything" I could ever want for a sharing PC on my LAN. It does so much more than what I have already discussed in threads thru-out the forum.

In my case, I can controlled ALL aspects of information sharing, much of which I haven't even touched on with a full SAMBA. (Stuff that I'd have to pay MS $10000s of dollars for a 15PC network)

So, I, personally, don't care if it takes 1 single byte or 40MB. Operationally, in the system, there is no apparent impact either way. 40MB is NOT a concern for ANY Microsoft convert.....NONE! Yet, the benefits (in support community for SAMBA, alone) is "Priceless!". Let's reduce this byte for byte discussion, please. Let's get to the next Puppy's needs and support the OP.

Finally, All SAMBA incarnations (full or otherwise) require a configuration file. I try to cover that in this thread to make it easy to get started. on 32bit and 64bit PUPs of that time. Now that we figured out that it can be done, its time for some standardization such that every user in every PUP will have a standard libraries and Menu items (same as we have with "Hardinfo"!).

Hope this helps.

_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engine or use DogPile

Edited_times_total
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
gcmartin


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4507
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jun 2011, 11:56    Post_subject:  

Double Posted by accident! Don't know how to delete it, either.
Go Puppy...GO!

_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engine or use DogPile
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Display_posts:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 5 Posts_count   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Projects
Jump to:  

Rules_post_cannot
Rules_reply_cannot
Rules_edit_cannot
Rules_delete_cannot
Rules_vote_cannot
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1340s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0059s) ][ GZIP on ]