Hi all
Although not a noob to Puppy (used 4.3 many years ago), it's been a while
since I've done anything with it.
However an interesting project has popped up and I thought about Puppy but since
it's been so many years , I've pretty much lost touch on what new ones are available.
My requirements as follows:
1) 32 bit only as mainly older non 64 bit machines will be used.
2) Must be able to run in RAM only.
3) Be able to boot from USB stick.
4) Should be able to run either a GUI (X) or CLI only.
(Don't mind having two separate versions).
The GUI should be light weight like XFCE or similar.
5) Since it will run in RAM with no persistence, the iso should be easy to
modify to set it exactly as required and what pgm/s should run at boot time.
Any pointers, suggestions and input greatly appreciated.
T.I.A.
Pete
Which Puppy to choose?
-
DanielSong39
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue 04 Mar 2014, 15:17
Trobin wrote:
Thanks DanielSong39, I will first investigate 6.0.5 (Tahr) and 6.3.0 (Slacko)
@starhawk
Good question, however it's one I can't really answer.
I get given second hand machines which could be anything from entry level Celerons right up to i7's.
The way I thought to approach it is by using a light weight Puppy and if it works
on a certain machine then great, if not then I simply use another.
However having said that, I don't really want to not use that many machines.
Waste not, want not.
There seems to be so many "Puppies" that I was hoping to narrow it down to two or three.Best advice I can give is to download a few and try them. See what works best.
Thanks DanielSong39, I will first investigate 6.0.5 (Tahr) and 6.3.0 (Slacko)
@starhawk
Good question, however it's one I can't really answer.
I get given second hand machines which could be anything from entry level Celerons right up to i7's.
The way I thought to approach it is by using a light weight Puppy and if it works
on a certain machine then great, if not then I simply use another.
However having said that, I don't really want to not use that many machines.
Waste not, want not.
There are an awful lot of puppies in the kennel aren't there.Pete wrote:Trobin wrote:
There seems to be so many "Puppies" that I was hoping to narrow it down to two or three.Best advice I can give is to download a few and try them. See what works best.
Thanks DanielSong39, I will first investigate 6.0.5 (Tahr) and 6.3.0 (Slacko)
I've tried Slacko 6.3.0 and it does work very well, as does Precise. I would also suggest Wary 5.5 for any of the older machines.
[url]http://speakpup.blogspot.com[/url]
Thanks for letting me know about Wary 5.5, will addit to number two of my list.Trobin wrote:
There are an awful lot of puppies in the kennel aren't there.
I've tried Slacko 6.3.0 and it does work very well, as does Precise. I would also suggest Wary 5.5 for any of the older machines.
I have decided not to try Tahr as it's Ubuntu based and I'm allergic to anything Ubuntu.
So that leaves Slacko 6.3.0 (32 bit which I'm downloading now) and Wary 5.5
Maybe add Slacko 5.7 to your Try-out Group
Hi Pete,
Unlike you, I prefer the Ubuntu-based Puppies. But I try out a lot of different flavored Puppies to see what can be done with them and whether any offer advantages over my current "first on my boot menu".
In exploring Slacko 6.3, I went with the 64-bit version. But one of the Puppies which remain on my boot-menu is Slacko 5.7. There's a wealth of software that will run under it, including any built for Slacko 5.6. As far as I know, there's a version of every modern browser which will run under the 5.7; as will portable-wine.
Slacko 5.7 is also the base which greengeek used to create Banksy 3 AKA The Personator. You may want to read its short thread (5 pages) --especially note the modifications greengeek recently added. http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=96805
Banksy is designed to run "in RAM Mode Only", yet provide a mechanism for the user to include his settings and customizations.
The amount of RAM available in your "various" computers being an unknown factor, I'd compare RAM usage of the 5.7 against that of the 6.3.
mikesLr
Unlike you, I prefer the Ubuntu-based Puppies. But I try out a lot of different flavored Puppies to see what can be done with them and whether any offer advantages over my current "first on my boot menu".
In exploring Slacko 6.3, I went with the 64-bit version. But one of the Puppies which remain on my boot-menu is Slacko 5.7. There's a wealth of software that will run under it, including any built for Slacko 5.6. As far as I know, there's a version of every modern browser which will run under the 5.7; as will portable-wine.
Slacko 5.7 is also the base which greengeek used to create Banksy 3 AKA The Personator. You may want to read its short thread (5 pages) --especially note the modifications greengeek recently added. http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=96805
Banksy is designed to run "in RAM Mode Only", yet provide a mechanism for the user to include his settings and customizations.
The amount of RAM available in your "various" computers being an unknown factor, I'd compare RAM usage of the 5.7 against that of the 6.3.
mikesLr
Hi mikeslr and thank you for the input.
The reasons I don't like Ubuntu are:
1) Endless amounts of updates.
2) Unfriendly forum.
3) Their "we know best" attitude, a case of "our way or the highway".
4) It's pretty much become bloatware.
5) I simply don't trust them, too many reports about collecting personal data.
In short I find them the bullies of the Linux world, but that is only my take on things.
Thanks for the link to Banksy 3 AKA The Personator which I read with great interest, but have decided to rule
it out simply because it's more of a one person's creation.
I mean no disrespect to greengeek's work which I find outstanding, but I prefer
a more "official" Puppy so in case of needing help, sharing ideas and posting
helpful scripts and pgms, it has more of an audience.
As regards RAM, I have to set a minimum limit and that will be 1GB as anything
less would just create problems plus the machines are not that old that I won't
be able to get more RAM for them if they don't have the min 1GB.
I could also "borrow" RAM from the machines that don't make the grade.
I have noted your like of Slacko 5.7 and will be giving that a test run too.
You raise a good point that RAM requirements of 6.3 may be (much) more than 5.7
The reasons I don't like Ubuntu are:
1) Endless amounts of updates.
2) Unfriendly forum.
3) Their "we know best" attitude, a case of "our way or the highway".
4) It's pretty much become bloatware.
5) I simply don't trust them, too many reports about collecting personal data.
In short I find them the bullies of the Linux world, but that is only my take on things.
Thanks for the link to Banksy 3 AKA The Personator which I read with great interest, but have decided to rule
it out simply because it's more of a one person's creation.
I mean no disrespect to greengeek's work which I find outstanding, but I prefer
a more "official" Puppy so in case of needing help, sharing ideas and posting
helpful scripts and pgms, it has more of an audience.
As regards RAM, I have to set a minimum limit and that will be 1GB as anything
less would just create problems plus the machines are not that old that I won't
be able to get more RAM for them if they don't have the min 1GB.
I could also "borrow" RAM from the machines that don't make the grade.
I have noted your like of Slacko 5.7 and will be giving that a test run too.
You raise a good point that RAM requirements of 6.3 may be (much) more than 5.7
post subject
Hi again pete,
I didn't know that your computers were always going to have at least 1 Gb of RAM. So, there probably won't be any significant difference between Slacko 5.7 and 6.3.
If I'm not mistaken, 01micko "woofed" both using Slackware 14.1 binaries, while in Slacko 5.6 Slackware 14.0 binaries were used. Given that Slackware by nature takes a conservative approach to upgrades, changes were slight. Which may be why most pets and SFSes for Slacko 5.6 also function under 5.7.
Which leads me to believe --'though not running the 32-bit Slacko 6.3 I haven't tested-- most of those apps will also function under Slacko 6.3.
One significant advantage of Slacko 6.3 is that it includes security upgrades for weaknesses discovered over the past 2 years. With 5.7, you'll have to use PPM to install them. Check the Security Subforum for what's been found.
On the other hand, I prefer the GUI of 5.7 as it comes "out of the box" over that of Slacko 6.3 (64Bit) which, I assume is identical to Slacko 6.3 (32-bit).
But, as it is usually a simple matter to change the GUI, perhaps what's come out of this dialogue is the fact that its time for me to download Slacko 6.3 (32-bit) and see how it stands up against 5.7.
Or in other words, we may have come full circle resulting in a 2nd vote for Slacko 6.3.
Before remastering, remember to check this thread regarding the Broadcom wireless driver: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=884946
Lastly, while I agree with your assessment of Ubuntu, it doesn't carry over to Tahrpup. 666philb has done a marvelous job in woofing a Puppy using Ubuntu Trusty Tahr binaries. It has resulted in an ISO weighing in at only 205 Mbs, while having the ability to successfully install via ppm ubuntu applications [not, perhaps as perfectly as Slacko can install Slackware, but much more often than earlier Ubuntu-based Puppies), And being a Puppy, it still receives the support and efforts of knowledgeable members of the Forum and a presence on the Forum for questions and discussions by all of us.
Despite its suggested RAM requirement of 768 Mb, I have it running flawlessly on a Dell Dimension 4600 (circa 2003) which has only 512 Mbs RAM -- albeit I created a 2 Gb Swap partition.
mikesLr
I didn't know that your computers were always going to have at least 1 Gb of RAM. So, there probably won't be any significant difference between Slacko 5.7 and 6.3.
If I'm not mistaken, 01micko "woofed" both using Slackware 14.1 binaries, while in Slacko 5.6 Slackware 14.0 binaries were used. Given that Slackware by nature takes a conservative approach to upgrades, changes were slight. Which may be why most pets and SFSes for Slacko 5.6 also function under 5.7.
Which leads me to believe --'though not running the 32-bit Slacko 6.3 I haven't tested-- most of those apps will also function under Slacko 6.3.
One significant advantage of Slacko 6.3 is that it includes security upgrades for weaknesses discovered over the past 2 years. With 5.7, you'll have to use PPM to install them. Check the Security Subforum for what's been found.
On the other hand, I prefer the GUI of 5.7 as it comes "out of the box" over that of Slacko 6.3 (64Bit) which, I assume is identical to Slacko 6.3 (32-bit).
But, as it is usually a simple matter to change the GUI, perhaps what's come out of this dialogue is the fact that its time for me to download Slacko 6.3 (32-bit) and see how it stands up against 5.7.
Or in other words, we may have come full circle resulting in a 2nd vote for Slacko 6.3.
Before remastering, remember to check this thread regarding the Broadcom wireless driver: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=884946
Lastly, while I agree with your assessment of Ubuntu, it doesn't carry over to Tahrpup. 666philb has done a marvelous job in woofing a Puppy using Ubuntu Trusty Tahr binaries. It has resulted in an ISO weighing in at only 205 Mbs, while having the ability to successfully install via ppm ubuntu applications [not, perhaps as perfectly as Slacko can install Slackware, but much more often than earlier Ubuntu-based Puppies), And being a Puppy, it still receives the support and efforts of knowledgeable members of the Forum and a presence on the Forum for questions and discussions by all of us.
Despite its suggested RAM requirement of 768 Mb, I have it running flawlessly on a Dell Dimension 4600 (circa 2003) which has only 512 Mbs RAM -- albeit I created a 2 Gb Swap partition.
mikesLr
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
I'll second Mike's assessment of Ubuntu.
Like you, I too dislike Ubuntu itself. I switched to Linux literally overnight when XP reached EOL. From the continuous, non-stop, never-ending updates, I thought I was re-installing Windows..!
It is, of course (apart from Mint), the first distro that all the bloggers and tech sites recommend to newbies. Much of the support stuff on the tech sites is written specifically for it. But as Mike says, the 'crap' does not carry over to Tahrpup. It was the very first Puppy I managed to find that would run, OOTB, with no graphics issues (or indeed, any at all), on my extremely elderly Dell Inspiron 1100 laptop. This runs a 2.6 GHz P4, 1 GB RAM, and a recently-fitted 64GB Kingspec PATA/IDE SSD. I'm currently quad-booting XP (yes, I re-installed it!
), Tahrpup 6.05, rg66's wonderful X-Slacko 2.3.2 (based on Slacko 570, with the XFCE desktop), and Precise 571. And they all, with the exception of XP, of course, simply fly.
Tahrpup even supported my TP-Link WN725N wireless 'nano' adapter ( the 1100 never came with a wireless card, unlike its 'big' brother, the 5100), literally from the word 'go'. I can't recommend it highly enough.
(And yes; the Ubuntu Forums do tend to come across as all high-n-mighty, looking down their noses at you.....though as with with any online forum, there are a handful of decent individuals who will bend over backwards to help folk out with all sorts of problems. Even some of the current moderators are pretty decent at the moment.)
Mike.
Like you, I too dislike Ubuntu itself. I switched to Linux literally overnight when XP reached EOL. From the continuous, non-stop, never-ending updates, I thought I was re-installing Windows..!
It is, of course (apart from Mint), the first distro that all the bloggers and tech sites recommend to newbies. Much of the support stuff on the tech sites is written specifically for it. But as Mike says, the 'crap' does not carry over to Tahrpup. It was the very first Puppy I managed to find that would run, OOTB, with no graphics issues (or indeed, any at all), on my extremely elderly Dell Inspiron 1100 laptop. This runs a 2.6 GHz P4, 1 GB RAM, and a recently-fitted 64GB Kingspec PATA/IDE SSD. I'm currently quad-booting XP (yes, I re-installed it!
), Tahrpup 6.05, rg66's wonderful X-Slacko 2.3.2 (based on Slacko 570, with the XFCE desktop), and Precise 571. And they all, with the exception of XP, of course, simply fly.Tahrpup even supported my TP-Link WN725N wireless 'nano' adapter ( the 1100 never came with a wireless card, unlike its 'big' brother, the 5100), literally from the word 'go'. I can't recommend it highly enough.
(And yes; the Ubuntu Forums do tend to come across as all high-n-mighty, looking down their noses at you.....though as with with any online forum, there are a handful of decent individuals who will bend over backwards to help folk out with all sorts of problems. Even some of the current moderators are pretty decent at the moment.)
Mike.
@mikeslr and @Mike Walsh
Great to hear that Ubuntu's "nonsense" is not carried over to tahrpup.
Nice to have alternatives, after all it's what Linux is all about.
I have downloaded Slacko 6.3 (32 bit) and will be popping out a bit later to buy a few USB sticks to experiment with.
My intention is to "dd" the iso to a USB stick, make changes as required, remaster
then use that as the "master" iso, again on USB sticks.
Thank you both for your input and will post back with my progress.
Pete
Great to hear that Ubuntu's "nonsense" is not carried over to tahrpup.
Nice to have alternatives, after all it's what Linux is all about.
I have downloaded Slacko 6.3 (32 bit) and will be popping out a bit later to buy a few USB sticks to experiment with.
My intention is to "dd" the iso to a USB stick, make changes as required, remaster
then use that as the "master" iso, again on USB sticks.
Thank you both for your input and will post back with my progress.
Pete
post subject
Hi again Pete,
Following up my recommendation that I try Slacko 6.3 (32-bit) I've just downloaded, Frugally installed, and booted into it.
PupSysInfo indicated that it was using 498 Mbs of RAM. This is 26 Mbs of RAM less than is reported on my Slacko 5.7 from which I am now posting. Of course, the latter is using a SaveFile and has a couple of SFSes loaded. But, all told, I doubt that any difference in RAM usage between the systems will be significant on a computer having 1 Gb of RAM.
Slacko 6.3 (32bit)'s GUI OOTB provides two panels. I had problems configuring the second panel in the 64Bit version, but not the 32Bit version. Maybe I've learned something. Or forgotten something.
At any rate, nice OS. Thanks, 01micko. And thanks, pete for your post which inspired me to give Slacko 6.3 (32bit) a whirl.
Now to see to what extent Apps for 5.6/7 will run under it; or have adequate replacements.
mikesLr
Following up my recommendation that I try Slacko 6.3 (32-bit) I've just downloaded, Frugally installed, and booted into it.
PupSysInfo indicated that it was using 498 Mbs of RAM. This is 26 Mbs of RAM less than is reported on my Slacko 5.7 from which I am now posting. Of course, the latter is using a SaveFile and has a couple of SFSes loaded. But, all told, I doubt that any difference in RAM usage between the systems will be significant on a computer having 1 Gb of RAM.
Slacko 6.3 (32bit)'s GUI OOTB provides two panels. I had problems configuring the second panel in the 64Bit version, but not the 32Bit version. Maybe I've learned something. Or forgotten something.
At any rate, nice OS. Thanks, 01micko. And thanks, pete for your post which inspired me to give Slacko 6.3 (32bit) a whirl.
Now to see to what extent Apps for 5.6/7 will run under it; or have adequate replacements.
mikesLr
Hi mikeslr
Thanks for the feedback.
So rounding off to 500MB plus on a rare occasion Firefox will be used which on average uses around 300MB for "casual" surfing, taking this to around 800MB.
I won't be using any resource hungry pgms like open office or similar.
The only machine on which I will put more RAM will be the development machine on which I will load the devx package to create the required pgms and remaster.
Just messing about a bit with 6.3, finding my way around, so to speak then will
try and load different packages from several repos to see what works and what does not.
Glad my post got you to try the 32 bit version and that the GUI works better than the 64 bit version.
So far I'm very impressed with 6.3 (32 bit).
Thanks for the feedback.
So rounding off to 500MB plus on a rare occasion Firefox will be used which on average uses around 300MB for "casual" surfing, taking this to around 800MB.
I won't be using any resource hungry pgms like open office or similar.
The only machine on which I will put more RAM will be the development machine on which I will load the devx package to create the required pgms and remaster.
Just messing about a bit with 6.3, finding my way around, so to speak then will
try and load different packages from several repos to see what works and what does not.
Glad my post got you to try the 32 bit version and that the GUI works better than the 64 bit version.
So far I'm very impressed with 6.3 (32 bit).
Web Browsers
Hi Pete,
While you're messing around, I suggest before you remaster that you try out various browsers. Slacko 6.3 includes a functional version of Firefox, which is good because lately there've been a lot of complaints that new versions, or upgrading an old version, weren't functional. I know how to configure firefox so that it won't automatically upgrade; but firefox builds its config files the first time you run it. I don't know how, or if, it is possible to construct firefox have it not upgrade by default.
Palemoon is a fork of firefox designed to avoid some of its bloat. It can use many of firefox's addons. It does not automatically update but, rather, provides a separate module to upgrade should the user desire to.
Oscartalks has been publishing versions of slimjet for Puppies. His latest can be found from this post: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 791#896791. Look for the Slacko version.
Slimjet uses the same "blink web-kit" as google-chrome/chromium, and can use many chrome addons. However, it does not report back to google anything.
Both slimjet and palemoon require less RAM than firefox.
You should be able to find a slacko build of palemoon. If not, you can download the x85 bzipped archive from here, http://linux.palemoon.org/download/mainline/ and unpack it. It will run from anywhere. I just ran it from /mnt/home in Slacko 6.3. But, it's fairly easy to package as an SFS or place its folder in /opt [with a symlink "on the path" to its executable, and a desktop file] before you remaster.
Gotta run so don't have time to find any of the several posts on the forum on how to link to "external files" and add menu entries. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help in this area.
mikesLr
While you're messing around, I suggest before you remaster that you try out various browsers. Slacko 6.3 includes a functional version of Firefox, which is good because lately there've been a lot of complaints that new versions, or upgrading an old version, weren't functional. I know how to configure firefox so that it won't automatically upgrade; but firefox builds its config files the first time you run it. I don't know how, or if, it is possible to construct firefox have it not upgrade by default.
Palemoon is a fork of firefox designed to avoid some of its bloat. It can use many of firefox's addons. It does not automatically update but, rather, provides a separate module to upgrade should the user desire to.
Oscartalks has been publishing versions of slimjet for Puppies. His latest can be found from this post: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 791#896791. Look for the Slacko version.
Slimjet uses the same "blink web-kit" as google-chrome/chromium, and can use many chrome addons. However, it does not report back to google anything.
Both slimjet and palemoon require less RAM than firefox.
You should be able to find a slacko build of palemoon. If not, you can download the x85 bzipped archive from here, http://linux.palemoon.org/download/mainline/ and unpack it. It will run from anywhere. I just ran it from /mnt/home in Slacko 6.3. But, it's fairly easy to package as an SFS or place its folder in /opt [with a symlink "on the path" to its executable, and a desktop file] before you remaster.
Gotta run so don't have time to find any of the several posts on the forum on how to link to "external files" and add menu entries. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help in this area.
mikesLr
Hi mikeslr
Thank you for offering help on how to trim down FF, I agree that of late it really has ballooned.
But before that, there is an awful lot of unnecessary stuff in Slacko 6.3.
It makes sense to have it in for the casual user but for my application
it just adds "bloat".
The current 32 bit iso is around 208MB, so without all the other pgms, perhaps
could get it down to around 100 - 120MB.
Will start a new thread on how to get rid of non essential things like gnumeric, mtpaint, Inkscape, Osmo, games and so on.
Will post a link to the new thread here.
EDIT:
Here is the link:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=106630
Thank you for offering help on how to trim down FF, I agree that of late it really has ballooned.
But before that, there is an awful lot of unnecessary stuff in Slacko 6.3.
It makes sense to have it in for the casual user but for my application
it just adds "bloat".
The current 32 bit iso is around 208MB, so without all the other pgms, perhaps
could get it down to around 100 - 120MB.
Will start a new thread on how to get rid of non essential things like gnumeric, mtpaint, Inkscape, Osmo, games and so on.
Will post a link to the new thread here.
EDIT:
Here is the link:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=106630