Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat 09 Jun 2012, 20:07
by Flash
It's for any suggestion that has to do with Puppy.
Posted: Sat 09 Jun 2012, 20:56
by nooby
I only try to be logical. I'm sure you are logical
so it does not apply to you personally I talk about
all the noobs not knowing that puppy saves by default
each 30 minutes so them would trust it only saves if
them tell it to save.
so unless all saving is changed to not save at all unless
one tell it too then it is too late to stop what you write.
"if things go seriously wrong
having Nosave as the default logoff action
enables a graceful exit."
But maybe that is implied that one only save if one want to.
I don't remember that it was set up that way on hard disk.
Hopefully I am wrong. I only tried to support your wish here.
So it was directly related. Okay!
Posted: Sun 10 Jun 2012, 01:53
by johnywhy
Thanks nooby.
Im confused, because when I log off my frugals, I get something like "puppy mounted in top layer, already saved." Even if my session was only 10 minutes.
would not be a problem if Auto-saving save a bad session, if we have auto-backup. Do you suggest another way to protect from this scenario?
Posted: Sun 10 Jun 2012, 02:27
by harii4
Incompatible Pets/SFS's
Seems like it would not take much to, say, prevent installation of an incompatible SFS or PET. At least a couple ways:
all pets/sfs's could have a tag or property indicating which puppy versions they are known to work with. On attempted install, alert user if their puppy version is not known to be compatible.
have a 'catch-all' menu, where launchers are placed if a pet/sfs tries to write to a menu that does not exist.
installers make other changes to the OS. Puppy should be "aware" of what the installer is doing, and alert user if the installer is trying to do something inappropriate.
Pupsave Backup/Restore
Many of us do manual backups and restores of the pupsave. Would love to see that automated (with manual option). Could be combined with "Last Known Good", above. I compress my backups, since they do compress so small. Even more space could be saved by making them incremental.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 862#629862
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 865#629865
I think these sorts of protections could help expand puppy's userbase to mainstream, non-expert users-- if that is a goal.
What other breakage-protections and fool-proofing can folks think of?
Until an new Fool-Proof-System comes out --
We can use what the Old Puppy Guru's way.
Try it on the "Live-CD" First - if it breaks don't use it.
WISE WORDS that fall on Deaf ears of One whom likes hard drive installs.
I'll never learn
Posted: Sun 10 Jun 2012, 02:47
by Karl Godt
johnywhy wrote:Thanks nooby.
Im confused, because when I log off my frugals, I get something like "puppy mounted in top layer, already saved." Even if my session was only 10 minutes.
would not be a problem if Auto-saving save a bad session, if we have auto-backup. Do you suggest another way to protect from this scenario?
Then you run frugal on normal HDD and not SSD-HDD or USB-Flash .
The RAMSAVEINTERVAL with snapmergepuppy and the "Save" icon on desktop only happens in combination with Flash to reduce the writings .
Launch "Puppy Event Manager" from System Menu and read the tab "Save Session" again if already read long time ago .
Posted: Sun 10 Jun 2012, 07:25
by Sylvander
nooby wrote:puppy saves by default
each 30 minutes
Only true IF/when [the Puppy THINKS] the pupsave file is being held on a Flash Drive.
So....
I configure my Puppy [
pmedia=ataflash in the isolinux.cfg file in the ISO] so it thinks the pupsave on the internal HDD is on an ATA Flash Drive.
Then I can configure so there is no auto-save during the session.
And CHOOSE instead IF/when to manually save the session during the session.
Posted: Wed 04 Jul 2012, 23:25
by noryb009
I'm just going to comment on the ideas in the first post:
Last Known Good Config:
It would be very easy for puppy linux to keep a backup of the last few configurations of a few key files: just get the checksum of the last backup (in some directory) and the current file on shutdown, and if they are different, make a new backup.
Incompatible Pets/SFS's:
Unfortunately, with how things are currently set up, I don't see this idea working. Pet files (at least the more advanced ones) can pretty much only be used on the puppy it was made for (which is stated in the file name or in the thread), and it's hard to fix an pet made for another puppy (dependencies are the main reason why they fail).
It is possible to alert the user if a file is going to be overwritten, then let the user choose which copy of the file to keep. I don't know why this hasn't been implemented yet.
Pupsave Backup/Restore:
I'm pretty sure there are some scripts somewhere in the forum for this type of thing.
Posted: Thu 12 Jul 2012, 21:02
by Gnuxo
Yeah, there are times when I screw up and wish that the session wasn't automatically saved on shut down.
If you can get an optional choice to ask whether to save each time, it could save a lot of heart ache and allow for more experimentation without fear.
Posted: Thu 12 Jul 2012, 21:58
by johnywhy
Gnuxo wrote:If you can get an optional choice to ask whether to save each time, it could save a lot of heart ache.
True, but it also gives the non-expert user something else to be confused about. "should I save or not? Whats a pupsave? Hm, my system's not working right, I better save."
My suggestion is to give the user less to think about, fewer admin tasks to deal with, not more.
Also, sometimes you won't know the system is broken until after you reboot, and then it's too late.
Autosaving a last-known-good resolves both those problems.
Posted: Thu 12 Jul 2012, 22:30
by Gnuxo
True, but it also gives the non-expert user something else to be confused about. "should I save or not? Whats a pupsave? Hm, my system's not working right, I better save.
Which is why I said make it optional. It doesn't have to be enabled by default.
...But it's a feature I would need because I download and install a lot of crap.
I also like mucking around in the .xinitrc, which is dangerous.
Posted: Fri 13 Jul 2012, 02:10
by harii4
I also like mucking around in the .xinitrc, which is dangerous.
Midnight Commander is good at fixing .xinitrc as well as backing the file up.
.xinitrc.bak
or copy and paste from the live-cd.
Posted: Fri 13 Jul 2012, 06:37
by Gnuxo
I was never really good at using Midnight Commander.
Have you tried Ranger? I heard it's pretty good.
Posted: Fri 13 Jul 2012, 15:44
by johnywhy
hi Gnuxo, i did not mean to be harsh there, sorry about that. Just tryin to keep the thread on the topic of making life easier for NON-experts.
Gnuxo wrote:I also like mucking around in the .xinitrc, which is dangerous.
exactly-- you know enough to be dangerous. The feature you suggested would help you, because you understand what it's for and when to use it.
which is the exact
opposite of what i'm suggesting here-- life-preservers for users who would
not be experimenting under the hood, and who just need an OS that works, and keeps working even if they install a bunch of crap that breaks the OS.
cheers!
Posted: Fri 13 Jul 2012, 16:18
by Gnuxo
Please don't assume that I know what I'm doing.
I'm only learning myself.
Which is why sometimes it would be nice if I couldn't save those changes.
I know that you meant no disrespect. It just sometimes depends on the person.
Some old folks will just browse, but sometimes there are those who really want to learn the OS. I've been using linux for awhile and I'm not very technically inclined, but I want to learn a bit more.
Also windows power users, will be linux power users, whether they know linux or not.
Besides, people who've never used a computer and start with linux, will be just as confused going to windows.
Posted: Sat 14 Jul 2012, 06:12
by harii4
Besides, people who've never used a computer and start with linux, will be just as confused going to windows. Laughing
So True,
How much hand holding Micro$oft do?
Offer an class for X amount of CASH.
If there was an way to make it fool proof - would Micro$oft already make it?
which is the exact opposite of what i'm suggesting here-- life-preservers for users who would not be experimenting under the hood, and who just need an OS that works, and keeps working even if they install a bunch of crap that breaks the OS.
Could put an block on so they can't download any add-on software?
Have an big puppy distro with everything but the Out house sink - why would they need anything.
Was only joking but it sounds like it just might work.
Posted: Sat 14 Jul 2012, 07:25
by Lobster
Part of the reason, apart from speed and optimised design, I choose to use Puppy, is the in between nature.
Puppy is general purpose enough to never need to use command line.
However there it is.
Top line.
Console.
Just waiting . . .
Then one day you decide to go beyond typing 'ls' or 'top' and thinking you are a maverick penguin.
Maybe you read that the power of Linux is the command line.
It is. You decide to go to Puppy hacker school.
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/PuppySchoolProgramming
You have been assimilated
Resistance is futile 