Puppy Users Group ---The PUG ....
Hmm - do you mean a bit of a petshop perhaps, where a new user might waltz in to a Puppy website, select from a menu of RAM and CPU (plus 32bit and 64bit, Intel vs AMD etc) hardware limitations, perhaps choose a WM (JWM, Icewm, openbox, lxde, compriz, E17 whatever) and have a SUGGESTED skeleton tailor-made for their hardware to download, over which they simply add their preferred apps with PPM? And just upgrade the kernel as they upgrade their machine? OOOOooooh I like it!
Who was it who had in his signature "Puppy Linux: Have it your way"?
[EDIT: sorry p310don - you practically stated the above earlier here http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 226#531226. Bedtime for me]
Who was it who had in his signature "Puppy Linux: Have it your way"?
[EDIT: sorry p310don - you practically stated the above earlier here http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 226#531226. Bedtime for me]
Search engines for Puppy
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
A petshop sounds like it would be a great thing for someone who knows the details of the hardware he or she has and is already familiar enough with the application programs available to know which ones he or she might want.
What about the newcomer to Puppy? Or the person who doesn't want to become an expert on his or her computer, or Linux in general? Are we chopped liver?
What about the newcomer to Puppy? Or the person who doesn't want to become an expert on his or her computer, or Linux in general? Are we chopped liver?
'standard/basic install' option with 'custom install' option?
ie automated or user defined, one click for noobs, a few more for the more experienced/experimental?
a user may experiment more - non destructively - with experience, using pupsave files? not sure i'm making sense anymore, time for bed...
*edit* but before i do - one more thought, and i'm thinking out of the top of my hat here, not really knowing what i'm on about... but would a kind of online remastering service be possible via repositories? boot to basic puppy and use as is or select options to be (auto?) downloaded followed by prompt to remaster?
night night
ie automated or user defined, one click for noobs, a few more for the more experienced/experimental?
a user may experiment more - non destructively - with experience, using pupsave files? not sure i'm making sense anymore, time for bed...
*edit* but before i do - one more thought, and i'm thinking out of the top of my hat here, not really knowing what i'm on about... but would a kind of online remastering service be possible via repositories? boot to basic puppy and use as is or select options to be (auto?) downloaded followed by prompt to remaster?
night night
ohm's where the art is
G'day Flash -Flash wrote:...
What about the newcomer to Puppy? Or the person who doesn't want to become an expert on his or her computer, or Linux in general? Are we chopped liver?
I think I see where you're coming from - you know that chopped liver is seen as a great treat for puppians - a bit like those pigs ears - and pigs ears come into the Puppy Process and habitually get turned into silk purses...
Ok so we have a diverse market that shares one crucial trait - they suspect strongly that they have been sold a Dog, or a steaming pile of barker's nests, from the Big End of town. Too much in-breeding with the OS that was dictated to them when they bought their computer - and while some might want to break away from that crowd completely and dance with wolves, others prefer just the occasional stroll with an unusual little "bitzer" (mongrel) they picked up as a stray - but continually amazes it's new owner with its abilities, loyalty, sense of fun, and downright doggedness in work ethic.
Much has been said elsewhere on the forums about whether we should dress up our "lamb" as XP, Vista or Win7 mutton without showing the wolf it actually can be, when needed, by its Owner. (Yay to the Hungarian Puppy Team in their XP disguises for Puppy.) It's a tired but valid argument that it is what 90% of the global market find familiar, but an ever-diminishing proportion of those believe that it is "safe" or good value for their money. Can we have the flexibility to cater for the spectrum of user's 1) expectations and 2) level of interest in what lies "under the hood"? A self-organizing Puplet that artifus is suggesting is a great idea, I think, but perhaps it should be coupled with better online support, while the Puppy is still in the window and not yet taken for a test run by it's new owner. This could be facilitated by simple you-tube demonstrations about what each (official?) derivative does - in terms of basic hardware environment needed, what it's window environment looks like, how you can access and add preferred applications - and perhaps a highlight on what the (hush) d*v*l*p*r has done or added to achieve a particular goal? We can't let sneekylinux do all the you-tube spruiking, surely - even though he does a fantastic job. Perhaps we should provide an in-house video team, like the Documentation team?
And I'll get in now before my inevitable edit - apologies if this last idea has been already pitched elsewhere on the forum - I'm hoping to add to the discussion rather than keep chasing my own tail...
EDIT: Bugger. Guess my obsession to keep rewriting history happened again - Lobster started this video initiative over a year ago http://puppylinux.mirocommunity.org/category/. Mucho, mucho embarazo
Last edited by Puppyt on Sat 11 Jun 2011, 23:58, edited 1 time in total.
Search engines for Puppy
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
Someone mentioned "ALL" computers
Having done this for a very long time (talking about myself), why do we keep using the term "All" computers. And, at the same time, concern ourselves with 100MB CD limitation, while expecting that we can create a system which does everything on all computers. Wow. When I saw Barry, Kirk, and Playdayz add some specifics on PCs for each of these Distros (namely WARY, FATDOG, Puppy), that, to me, began a beginning round of identifying tested platforms which they support. We are too small to support ALL. And we should continue the vocabulary that started for PCs supported so that we can realistically achieve a reasonable objective at a very high level of quality. This doesn't mean restricting, it means classification!
When we post the word "ALL" we seem to be advocating something different from the current Puppy. It put down a statement (intent is there) We must understand that ALL will misguide and get misused by all the wrong methods. We shouldn't be afraid of saying "This is supported on these platforms. And while it may work on other plafforms its designed for these." This then take a level of professionaism to the community. And, allow us to focus. Yes, I have been able to deploy MS OSs on platforms they were never intended for, but, it was clear, to me, before I started what they intended. And, I could publish my finding. But even a behemoth like MS would never use "ALL". We shouldn't either.
Maybe, here, we SHOULD put a stake in the ground of what PCs (homes) the new Puppy is expecting to be boarded.
We are a smart group. Let keep the smartness growing.
Edited: Here's an example (but PLEASE don't use my words)
"I will support all PCs built after 2006 that are equivalent to Intel's P4 or greater, including Intel and AMD 64bit processors up to today. And, I will use all RAM that is reported to me from the system's BIOS. I also will use all peripheral reported after system startup within the Linux OS."
Yes, its still vague; but it does categorize the class machines I feel certain will have all adequate resources to easily run. Its provides enough specifics such that a clearer understanding of what this is designed for is extremely helpful for those planning to deploy.
Hope this helps.
When we post the word "ALL" we seem to be advocating something different from the current Puppy. It put down a statement (intent is there) We must understand that ALL will misguide and get misused by all the wrong methods. We shouldn't be afraid of saying "This is supported on these platforms. And while it may work on other plafforms its designed for these." This then take a level of professionaism to the community. And, allow us to focus. Yes, I have been able to deploy MS OSs on platforms they were never intended for, but, it was clear, to me, before I started what they intended. And, I could publish my finding. But even a behemoth like MS would never use "ALL". We shouldn't either.
Maybe, here, we SHOULD put a stake in the ground of what PCs (homes) the new Puppy is expecting to be boarded.
We are a smart group. Let keep the smartness growing.
Edited: Here's an example (but PLEASE don't use my words)
"I will support all PCs built after 2006 that are equivalent to Intel's P4 or greater, including Intel and AMD 64bit processors up to today. And, I will use all RAM that is reported to me from the system's BIOS. I also will use all peripheral reported after system startup within the Linux OS."
Yes, its still vague; but it does categorize the class machines I feel certain will have all adequate resources to easily run. Its provides enough specifics such that a clearer understanding of what this is designed for is extremely helpful for those planning to deploy.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by gcmartin on Tue 07 Jun 2011, 00:07, edited 2 times in total.
I would think that a "new" point for Puppy would be appropriate.
Old forms of computers to support would be a good discussion...but no longer a focus.
How old would you support?
And why support old kit?
It's a new world and happening fast....does Puppy need to support 486...586?...or move to the front and support the new processors?
Lot's out there is happening....get with the development and progress I figure.
Let's let the old go and embrace the new....Eric
PS..I didn't read the long posts..sorry All.
Old forms of computers to support would be a good discussion...but no longer a focus.
How old would you support?
And why support old kit?
It's a new world and happening fast....does Puppy need to support 486...586?...or move to the front and support the new processors?
Lot's out there is happening....get with the development and progress I figure.
Let's let the old go and embrace the new....Eric
PS..I didn't read the long posts..sorry All.
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
Hi all
what brought me to puppy and linux was lucid 5, not because of any fancy gizmos or the distro it was compatable with, but it was a lean, light and simple fully functioning os. I just booted from the cd and away I went.
Now I am using a multisession dvd I can use my desktop on any of my pc's (even my old 800mhz amd with 512mb ram) would it be possible to make puppy write to a usb stick in the same manner (so it didnt automaticaly save a session and I could add a mobile swap file as well for pc's that do not have a swap file and limited ram) or perhaps a full install to a usb stick (making it truly mobile)
just some ideas
stripe
what brought me to puppy and linux was lucid 5, not because of any fancy gizmos or the distro it was compatable with, but it was a lean, light and simple fully functioning os. I just booted from the cd and away I went.
Now I am using a multisession dvd I can use my desktop on any of my pc's (even my old 800mhz amd with 512mb ram) would it be possible to make puppy write to a usb stick in the same manner (so it didnt automaticaly save a session and I could add a mobile swap file as well for pc's that do not have a swap file and limited ram) or perhaps a full install to a usb stick (making it truly mobile)
just some ideas
stripe
Hello,
Just use gparted to make partitions on the USB stick..
Make one Linux Swap, another fat32 for windoze access/sharing
And the third for Puppy...Ext2/3....
Install Puppy to it...
Just use gparted to make partitions on the USB stick..
Make one Linux Swap, another fat32 for windoze access/sharing
And the third for Puppy...Ext2/3....
Install Puppy to it...
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...
Hi Jay,
I would use an old USB stick for swap and put the "install" on another USB drive.
I used this successfully for a long time (2 sticks)..hell, still use an old Kingston 512 usb stick for swap (3 or 4 years?) dunno but a long time.
This started as a customer asked for a slim kit...it still works but she went to Apple...but it does still work...after many years and daily use...Eric
I would use an old USB stick for swap and put the "install" on another USB drive.
I used this successfully for a long time (2 sticks)..hell, still use an old Kingston 512 usb stick for swap (3 or 4 years?) dunno but a long time.
This started as a customer asked for a slim kit...it still works but she went to Apple...but it does still work...after many years and daily use...Eric
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
Caneri Said:
Rather than look at a "new" point, maybe it's good to look the other way for the "old" point.
I have read a few recent posts saying things like "i've installed lupu 5.25 on my old p4 laptop with 256mb ram 60gig hdd" etc. In Puppy's "old" context, this is kinda new, don't you think?
For a Vista or 7 user, a PC that is older than 2 or 3 years is pretty old. Its almost as if its too old once its out of warranty! In that sense, all *our* ideas of old might be much further than others.
New for Puppy is within 5 years, but that is old for the Wintel types!!
Old computers have been a focus for Barry, and it would still be good to support them. i486 is VERY old, and probably too old to focus support on. I believe 01micko at one point said he had a 486 running puppy, or linux, in his shed, but reality is, machines of that age are useless for just about anything.I would think that a "new" point for Puppy would be appropriate.
Old forms of computers to support would be a good discussion...but no longer a focus.
Rather than look at a "new" point, maybe it's good to look the other way for the "old" point.
I have read a few recent posts saying things like "i've installed lupu 5.25 on my old p4 laptop with 256mb ram 60gig hdd" etc. In Puppy's "old" context, this is kinda new, don't you think?
For a Vista or 7 user, a PC that is older than 2 or 3 years is pretty old. Its almost as if its too old once its out of warranty! In that sense, all *our* ideas of old might be much further than others.
New for Puppy is within 5 years, but that is old for the Wintel types!!
-
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Wed 25 Aug 2010, 15:38
- Location: ISM Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
Hi everyone,
On going through the thread I see that all want to add features to puppy but all are afraid of increasing size too much, well over 100MB.
I have a suggestion. Puppy should be built from source, but in a different way.
We can remove debugging symbols by filtering out '-g' option to gcc while compiling source packages.
This can be done in two ways.
1. Instead of running:
We can run:
2. We can write a wrapper script for gcc which will filter out '-g' option.
This will reduce size of puppy to almost half, if not, to two-third
Then we will get plenty of room for adding more stuff, and still stay around 100MB.
On going through the thread I see that all want to add features to puppy but all are afraid of increasing size too much, well over 100MB.
I have a suggestion. Puppy should be built from source, but in a different way.
We can remove debugging symbols by filtering out '-g' option to gcc while compiling source packages.
This can be done in two ways.
1. Instead of running:
Code: Select all
# ./configure [options] && make && make install
Code: Select all
# ./configure [options] && make install-strip
This will reduce size of puppy to almost half, if not, to two-third
Then we will get plenty of room for adding more stuff, and still stay around 100MB.
Have you tested this to see how much difference it actually makes? Cos I know a lot of compilers here already run the 'strip' command on their builds .. (So I do as well... )akash_rawal wrote:1. Instead of running:We can run:Code: Select all
# ./configure [options] && make && make install
2. We can write a wrapper script for gcc which will filter out '-g' optionCode: Select all
# ./configure [options] && make install-strip
I run 'strip --strip-unneeded *' on all the bins and libs
Is this the same thing?
[b][url=https://bit.ly/2KjtxoD]Pkg[/url], [url=https://bit.ly/2U6dzxV]mdsh[/url], [url=https://bit.ly/2G49OE8]Woofy[/url], [url=http://goo.gl/bzBU1]Akita[/url], [url=http://goo.gl/SO5ug]VLC-GTK[/url], [url=https://tiny.cc/c2hnfz]Search[/url][/b]
-
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Wed 25 Aug 2010, 15:38
- Location: ISM Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
This reduces the size of binaries to almost half. Functionality is not affected at all.sc0ttman wrote: Have you tested this to see how much difference it actually makes?
I don't think, because I tried both methods on my boot loader manager and found that "./configure && make created a 201 KB executive. On compiling manually without '-g' option I got 90 KB executive. Using "strip --strip-unneeded" gives me even smaller 74 KB file. Dynamic loading of callback funcs still works in each case.sc0ttman wrote: I run 'strip --strip-unneeded *' on all the bins and libs
Is this the same thing?
Concerning higher performance Puppy on newer hardware--it seems that is an interest of several people--me included.
The Slackware binaries are built for i686. The Ubuntu binaries used in Lucid had been built for i386. To me, Slacko seems noticeably quicker. So that is happening.
01micko just mentioned in the Slacko thread possibly building a 2.6.39.1 kernel with PAE--I would like to see the latest kernel possible because I know from Lucid that after one year the kernel will seem long in the tooth.
There is Fatdog 64.
I have been getting 8-10% speed improvement from Firefox and Seamonkey by compiling them myself for my particular cpu. The newer your cpu the more improvement you will get. Some instructions are at http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67756
.
Seamonkey 2.1 is ***much*** faster than 2.0.14 even without any compiling tricks.
I am also interested in having current versions of the best Linux software available. The Lucid community has been a huge help in this. I look through Additional Software and find things periodically and make Lucid pets. The Lucid PPM contains packages that have been tested and configured for Lucid--I believe this will be important to the success of future Puppies. It's hard for one person to coordinate development *and* fill the PPM. Lucid is OK now, but I could have used a group who would find and make the latest software, make it into Lucid pets, and then test and send me the package. Perhaps at some point 01micko could use this.
The Slackware binaries are built for i686. The Ubuntu binaries used in Lucid had been built for i386. To me, Slacko seems noticeably quicker. So that is happening.
01micko just mentioned in the Slacko thread possibly building a 2.6.39.1 kernel with PAE--I would like to see the latest kernel possible because I know from Lucid that after one year the kernel will seem long in the tooth.
There is Fatdog 64.
I have been getting 8-10% speed improvement from Firefox and Seamonkey by compiling them myself for my particular cpu. The newer your cpu the more improvement you will get. Some instructions are at http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67756
.
Seamonkey 2.1 is ***much*** faster than 2.0.14 even without any compiling tricks.
I am also interested in having current versions of the best Linux software available. The Lucid community has been a huge help in this. I look through Additional Software and find things periodically and make Lucid pets. The Lucid PPM contains packages that have been tested and configured for Lucid--I believe this will be important to the success of future Puppies. It's hard for one person to coordinate development *and* fill the PPM. Lucid is OK now, but I could have used a group who would find and make the latest software, make it into Lucid pets, and then test and send me the package. Perhaps at some point 01micko could use this.
Hello,
Yep..
Older kernels dont support new hardware..
Support for older hardware left out of newer kernels...
Catch 22... Bummer...
Ttuuxxx`s 214x series does a nice job with his stuff compiled for newer hardware on the 2.6.18 kernel...
But it is not "The best of both worlds.."
Yep..
Older kernels dont support new hardware..
Support for older hardware left out of newer kernels...
Catch 22... Bummer...
Ttuuxxx`s 214x series does a nice job with his stuff compiled for newer hardware on the 2.6.18 kernel...
But it is not "The best of both worlds.."
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...
Hello,
As I have stated multiple times, Puppy has to be a "Kennel"...
Just like the "Pound"...pick a breed, to fit your need, and go with it...
Maybe the "Dog Pound" metaphor will get it across... LOL...
As I have stated multiple times, Puppy has to be a "Kennel"...
Just like the "Pound"...pick a breed, to fit your need, and go with it...
Maybe the "Dog Pound" metaphor will get it across... LOL...
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 like the ideas here.
My summary of observation thus far, we need two (or more) flavours of Puppy, one for old and one for new hardware.
Old would have support for, obviously, older hardware, but offer the newest, best and safest software. This would probably also still work on newer hardware, but probably not as optimised.
New would have support for newer hardware with the same newest, best and safest software. Probably won't work on old hardware, but, that's not the intention.
I think it would be ideal to have, if possible, two puppies that are virtually identical, but with differing kernels to suit different hardware. Something like Jemimah did with puppeee and fluppy.
The older puppy would be similar to what we have now, or perhaps more along the lines of Wary, with an older, more stable and mature kernel with support for as much legacy stuff as possible. Maybe the extra drivers for things like dialup etc could be in a zdrv to keep it the same as the newer.
The newer puppy would have the same software but with a kernel optimised for the latest stuff. What would be a cut off point for newest? i686? Or a little older? Would it be worth jumping forth with 64bit? That leads to needing different software to utilise all 64 bits. As discussed, PAE has similar benefits, but uses 32 bit software. Not as good, but an easier solution that *should* work on just about all NEW hardware. Maybe there is a need for 3 in the kennel??
Maybe a 4th, but ARM is a big leap for a little puppy.... Do we just argue that puppies have 4 legs and no ARMs?
I see samba get mentioned all the time, rcrsn51's samba-tng package is tiny compared to full samba at only a couple of mb, and offers almost perfect file sharing with other machines of the other OS. I think it should be included in future puppies, or at the very least, in an official repository.
There is a lot of push in other threads for slack compatibility, and it is mentioned here as well, is this the direction to go in? Does this affect the number / naming of Puppy? Do we really care about that??
My personal observation of Puppy and its binary compatibility stuff is that its a negative for Puppy as a selling point, but positive as a feature. So many times have I read reviews, and forum help requests, that state for a fact that Puppy is now an Ubuntu derivative. Now its going to be a Slack derivative too? To sell it to new users, maybe tone down the compatibility talk, and talk up the puppy talk. I'm still not 100% sure how to get this one across.
Size is always an issue with Puppy. Akash_rawal, how did you go with your size idea? Does it work? If that works when compiling, we've got 30 or 40 meg to play with, if not, we're full already..! Is 128 still the maximum goal? If we're aiming for higher hardware, can that slip upwards? if we're aiming for the same OS with different kernels, we are limited by older hardware. Are there things in puppy, that aren't used? I haven't used most of the things in the network menu for example..
Rough summary anyway. Is that about right?
Are any of the devs working on the stuff in this thread?
Is it up to that yet?
Is anyone volunteering to make a start?
I hope so, things are looking bright.
My summary of observation thus far, we need two (or more) flavours of Puppy, one for old and one for new hardware.
Old would have support for, obviously, older hardware, but offer the newest, best and safest software. This would probably also still work on newer hardware, but probably not as optimised.
New would have support for newer hardware with the same newest, best and safest software. Probably won't work on old hardware, but, that's not the intention.
I think it would be ideal to have, if possible, two puppies that are virtually identical, but with differing kernels to suit different hardware. Something like Jemimah did with puppeee and fluppy.
The older puppy would be similar to what we have now, or perhaps more along the lines of Wary, with an older, more stable and mature kernel with support for as much legacy stuff as possible. Maybe the extra drivers for things like dialup etc could be in a zdrv to keep it the same as the newer.
The newer puppy would have the same software but with a kernel optimised for the latest stuff. What would be a cut off point for newest? i686? Or a little older? Would it be worth jumping forth with 64bit? That leads to needing different software to utilise all 64 bits. As discussed, PAE has similar benefits, but uses 32 bit software. Not as good, but an easier solution that *should* work on just about all NEW hardware. Maybe there is a need for 3 in the kennel??
Maybe a 4th, but ARM is a big leap for a little puppy.... Do we just argue that puppies have 4 legs and no ARMs?
I see samba get mentioned all the time, rcrsn51's samba-tng package is tiny compared to full samba at only a couple of mb, and offers almost perfect file sharing with other machines of the other OS. I think it should be included in future puppies, or at the very least, in an official repository.
There is a lot of push in other threads for slack compatibility, and it is mentioned here as well, is this the direction to go in? Does this affect the number / naming of Puppy? Do we really care about that??
My personal observation of Puppy and its binary compatibility stuff is that its a negative for Puppy as a selling point, but positive as a feature. So many times have I read reviews, and forum help requests, that state for a fact that Puppy is now an Ubuntu derivative. Now its going to be a Slack derivative too? To sell it to new users, maybe tone down the compatibility talk, and talk up the puppy talk. I'm still not 100% sure how to get this one across.
Size is always an issue with Puppy. Akash_rawal, how did you go with your size idea? Does it work? If that works when compiling, we've got 30 or 40 meg to play with, if not, we're full already..! Is 128 still the maximum goal? If we're aiming for higher hardware, can that slip upwards? if we're aiming for the same OS with different kernels, we are limited by older hardware. Are there things in puppy, that aren't used? I haven't used most of the things in the network menu for example..
Rough summary anyway. Is that about right?
Are any of the devs working on the stuff in this thread?
Is it up to that yet?
Is anyone volunteering to make a start?
I hope so, things are looking bright.