(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

one of my favorite sites.... read by millions everyday.

Scroll down to Aug 02 15:48 ......

There have been many write ups on Puppy at various places.
So I do not expect a noticeable increase in Puppy linux use.
As people (not geeks) buying new PCs get lost trying to use the new Windows 8 and 8.1 OS, we may see an influx of people to linux.

But in my opinion, Puppy's boot process being exposed and displayed on the screen rather than being hidden by a progress screen similar to Ubuntu makes Puppy look like a geeks OS.

And in that respect, Puppy needs a rewrite of the boot process so as to hide the blow by blow info from the user with something like a screen with a Puppy logo and progress indicator arriving at the desktop afterward.

Agreed.

A splash screen is years overdue.

What if we could choose between the two?
(perhaps with simplified boot screen as default)

The escape key drops most boot splashes to the boot code terminal.

Puppy needs lots of things, many of them have come and gone.

How about a real organizing body to see to the improvements?

sunburnt wrote:The escape key drops most boot splashes to the boot code terminal.

Puppy needs lots of things, many of them have come and gone.

How about a real organizing body to see to the improvements?

The boot process is itself outdated.

I agree, there`s new processes that improve on the old.

Again, for it to happen to Puppy there must be a "future" consensus.
A boot package could be made as a replacement for Puppy`s current setup.
This affords the opportunity for many improvements to Puppy...

Puppy is so unique that I think that it serves a useful purpose to inform users what is happening.
Cheers

Much of Puppy`s uniqueness is in it`s many boot methods.
I`ve seen a number of other O.S.s that use Squash files, many Ubuntu variants.
Most other differences are simply the utilities chosen for that O.S.
Puppy does tend to put things in odd places, hopefully it`ll go Debian setup.

So far there`s nothing to inform anyone about... But there`s hope.

sunburnt wrote:The escape key drops most boot splashes to the boot code terminal.

Puppy needs lots of things, many of them have come and gone.

How about a real organizing body to see to the improvements?

If you desire a more structured approach to developing Puppy you may have to fork it, Puppy development is informal-
http://puppylinux.com/development/project-statement.htm

darkcity; Informal is good, I`m all about informal, but it doesn`t mean everyone`s by themselves.

My main thought was all the good ideas and code that`s come and gone from Puppy.
If a few folks ( probably with download sites ) had repositories of donated code.
Most sites are apps., but there`s some Puppy tweaks to be found at some of them also.

There`s several threads about directions and needed fixes. This is definitely top drawer.
.

sunburnt wrote:darkcity; Informal is good, I`m all about informal, but it doesn`t mean everyone`s by themselves.
My main thought was all the good ideas and code that`s come and gone from Puppy.
If a few folks ( probably with download sites ) had repositories of donated code.
Most sites are apps., but there`s some Puppy tweaks to be found at some of them also.
There`s several threads about directions and needed fixes. This is definitely top drawer.
.

Capable people like TazOC, iguleder, RSH and jemimah have already forked their projects.
Don't know if there is staff behind them.
Kirk and jamesbond are working together on their project .
Since you are fond of the module art of build , R-S-H would be someone that would fit towards your direction . RSH is/was no easy guy, tended to too high emotions .
I really think that it needs physically meetings, not just the virtual anonymous internet to co-operate on a project .

To me Puppy is a container to install full and frugal and start to compile self .
Not much GUI needed from my side .
I have installed the same full installation in four partitions to replay everything, so the workings probably stick in my brain .

Karl; The folks you mention I`m sure appreciate not redoing things, or loosing them either.

I wasn`t suggesting a new variant so much as reducing and preserving these folks efforts.

I have ideas about needed fixes, and anyone who`s used Puppy for awhile has some too.

Informal in this case means no formal structure for working together or planning objectives. People work on what they like and if Barry likes it he'll include it or give it official status.

The reason I say you would need to fork Puppy to work differently is because this method of working is not optional. To call it Puppy you must work in this fashion.

In a way I can see the logic to this. Most if not all coding/configuring is done voluntarily, so what incentive is there to do the hard/boring work of maintaining a coordinated project?

This is a problem is symptomatic of creating FOSS in the current economic system.

darkcity; You`re right of course. But Debian breaks it into pieces making it manageable.
Folks volunteer to maintain just a small part of the o.s. or a few apps ( specialize ).
This is easily done when the item is familiar and little time is required of the individual.

I see people here that build certain types of apps. Others maintain variants. Colaborate!