Removing programs probably will have no advantage, since most take up very little disk space. Some programs, like ftp, will be very useful later on when you learn how to use it. A different approach: included programs have been carefully screened before being included. Try a few out, it's what makes puppy interesting. The advantage of inclusion by the developer is that they work, and are well tested and integrated. That's why puppy is SOOOOO much superior to something like TinyCore.Volhout wrote:
About Slacko, and "what to remove"...... actually I just last night used the "remove buildin packages" tool and was looking what I could do to ThinSlacko to make it smaller.... I removed something 20+ items from the menu's. Things like "ftp server, 2 editors (geany, and abiword are enough), file difference checkers, some process viewers, download complete websites, pzchmview, etc.. all these tools that are for programmers. Nice tool by the way, it also removes the menu items.
The world has changed
Re: response
I agree in the fat Puppy idea... Lots of work by the builder making sure everything functions.
This is best suited to builder groups, though some folks may have the process streamlined.
And rather than worrying about upgrading apps., just make a new fat Puppy instead.
# Puppy always was a case of trading up to a newer one.
Adding apps. is good in the Debian, Ubuntu, Slack versions with their good parentage.
# I`m a fan of RoxApps, easy to add and remove, and they don`t scatter files everywhere.
# Having so many Puppy parents is problematic. One parent has obvious advantages.
I`ve suggested add-on app. packs ( groups of like apps.), media, office, games, web, etc.
# Note: For new Puppy releases remember to post app. list and the download size.!
.
This is best suited to builder groups, though some folks may have the process streamlined.
And rather than worrying about upgrading apps., just make a new fat Puppy instead.
# Puppy always was a case of trading up to a newer one.
Adding apps. is good in the Debian, Ubuntu, Slack versions with their good parentage.
# I`m a fan of RoxApps, easy to add and remove, and they don`t scatter files everywhere.
# Having so many Puppy parents is problematic. One parent has obvious advantages.
I`ve suggested add-on app. packs ( groups of like apps.), media, office, games, web, etc.
# Note: For new Puppy releases remember to post app. list and the download size.!
.
Then you may be interested in this:sunburnt wrote:# I`m a fan of RoxApps, easy to add and remove, and they don`t scatter files everywhere.
- Nix OS
- Nix Package Manager, which apparently has been adopted as "The" GNU Package Manager (GNU Guix).
Interesting concept, although too much for my taste
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]
I have a bit difficult to understand the term ROX-APPS . ROX-Filer and some applications are located in /usr/local/apps .
I have started to configure apps with --prefix=/usr/APPTYPE like /usr/gtk , /usr/multimedia and /usr/SDL , to have a better overview when things exhibit problems .
That needs to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH and /etc/ld.so.conf accordingly .
BTW , the world has changed ? : confused :
I have started to configure apps with --prefix=/usr/APPTYPE like /usr/gtk , /usr/multimedia and /usr/SDL , to have a better overview when things exhibit problems .
That needs to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH and /etc/ld.so.conf accordingly .
BTW , the world has changed ? : confused :
Q5sys is absolutely dead on in emphasizing that for certain purposes, such as running a business, Puppy is simply not a good idea. But it seems some people are bent on criticizing a pickup truck for being a lousy limousine...
As for Q5sys's reference to "Psych 101", when I said I didn't understand why people get so obsessed with promoting Puppy, I was just trying to make a point. I understand perfectly well what's going on. It's what leads to cliques in high school and fights at sporting events, and aren't we all the worse off for it? People ought to have the courage of their own convictions.
It saddens me to see so much time wasted arguing about something that is just a mirage anyway. The idea of a standard fat Puppy distro is surely an exercise in futility, quite apart from being a contradition in terms (since Puppy's whole point is to be lean). How can there be a standard fat Puppy when there's no such thing as a standard fat Puppy USER?
You can load a distro up with 2GB of the most popular, most widely-used Linux apps out there, and won't there still be plenty of users complaining that THEIR favorite app isn't included, or who cannot accept a "standard" app that was included? Even something as fundamental as an office productivity suite is rife with controversy. Anyone who thinks that Libre Office (for example) is universally acceptable is simply uninformed.
If the notion of a standard fat Puppy really is valid, and if there really is a crying need for it, then I expect that one will emerge; vacuums do tend to get filled. But I'm not holding my breath.
As for Q5sys's reference to "Psych 101", when I said I didn't understand why people get so obsessed with promoting Puppy, I was just trying to make a point. I understand perfectly well what's going on. It's what leads to cliques in high school and fights at sporting events, and aren't we all the worse off for it? People ought to have the courage of their own convictions.
It saddens me to see so much time wasted arguing about something that is just a mirage anyway. The idea of a standard fat Puppy distro is surely an exercise in futility, quite apart from being a contradition in terms (since Puppy's whole point is to be lean). How can there be a standard fat Puppy when there's no such thing as a standard fat Puppy USER?
You can load a distro up with 2GB of the most popular, most widely-used Linux apps out there, and won't there still be plenty of users complaining that THEIR favorite app isn't included, or who cannot accept a "standard" app that was included? Even something as fundamental as an office productivity suite is rife with controversy. Anyone who thinks that Libre Office (for example) is universally acceptable is simply uninformed.
If the notion of a standard fat Puppy really is valid, and if there really is a crying need for it, then I expect that one will emerge; vacuums do tend to get filled. But I'm not holding my breath.
Time to give up that soda!ardvark wrote:starhawk wrote: 5'3 ~220lbs (~100kg for non US folks) here... that makes me a fat Puppy user, right?
I don't think it's all that much off topic. The biggest factor here is that newer kernels require the mesa package, ~30M, plus the kernel is a bit bigger with more drivers included ootb, programs all grow including backend libraries, and stuff like ffmpeg, abiword, mplayer and whatever browser.volhout wrote:And then ... completely off-topic ..... I look at Slacko 533 (not thinslack) and Slacko 56 and there is 50Mbyte size difference (1.5x size). But they offer very much alike functionality. Is this difference in the kernel part ?
Puppy is very extensible with sfs files, and it's quite easy to make your own from a .pet (search the forum) or other distro's packages or even combine sfs files. With a bit of minor editing you can easily have libreoffice (or your preferred office suite) open programs with one click and also make them the defaults.
Puppy will never please everyone, that's not what it's for anyway. I like it because of it's speed, even on old clunkers. However my main 3 machines could hardly be classified as "old" in puppy terms. They are all 64 bit capable and could easily run most distros. However, I find my self using puppy near all the time on 2 of them, the other is my homework box, puppy only gets tested on that one.
As for PHATSlacko, there may be another version soon; the part I like about it is Samba out of the box. Very handy.
But as for an official "FAT" version? No. Barry would never agree to it.. it is his baby after all. I'm of the opinion it's not needed.
And until rox-filer and jwm don't work any more with new libraries, that will be the default interface.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
I didnt think you were intentionally trying to offend, just wanted to point it out in case you didnt realize it. I've praised 01Micko's work here for a while. I hope he stays around and continues to do great things for this community.Volhout wrote:Hi Q5sys,
First of all, I don't want to offend anyone, and especially not 01Micko, since I highly appreciate his work, and I am using Slacko every day on my netbook. And Lucid is also based on his work.
I myself use Lucid 528 on the desktop PC's in my office and run my business with it. And I am happy with it. And yes, I ran into a few hurdles, and thanks to the responce I got on this forum, it is running fine for more than 3 years now.
Glad to hear it!Volhout wrote:So I believe in Puppy.
My personal opinion is that QT is a the way of the future and we need to start including it by default. But there are plenty of people that feel that gtk still has life left in it. Historically puppy has been GTK based, so there's a bit of resistance. I always pack QT up in an SFS and load it automatically.Volhout wrote:Stellarium is used as an example for a program that will never show up in a distro since it is not a primary function for a PC, but it is a great program for entertainment (power up your laptop when you are sitting on the deck and are looking at the sky in the night after a good BBQ, drinking one beer too many) and it has critical Qt dependencies. Things that are not in all puppies.
That's where individuals need to push the non official releases if they want them to gain use. Barry has decided not to embrace the larger sizes as official, until he changes his mind... Its up to the community to push the non official versions.Volhout wrote:I have used FATslacko, Phatslacko, and have downloaded Lighthouse Mariner to try soon. And they are a lot closer to what I have in mind. But they are not official puppies. No-one can find them, unless they look at the right page at the forum. I vote to make one of these fat ones an official release, sanctioned by Barry, listed on distrowatch, etc. And THAT is the point.
Thats 100% in the wrong direction. I dont agree with that at all. I dont think Puppy is just a Dev Toy. But I dont think that Puppy should just become 'yet another' Linux distro by being loaded with tons of applications that rarely get used. I think we instead should make those as SFS packages which a user can load if and when they need. Leave the Bloat out, focus on the gold.Volhout wrote:So in fact, I think in many things we do agree. Only your position is that it should not be Puppy, since puppy is such a great toy for developers. Don't burden it with the load to also be a product for the mob. I agree, you do have a point in that.
To quote Einstein, "Things should be made as simple as possible but no simplier." Yes I realize that's a horrible paraphrase. His point was dont dumb things down to where they loose their essence. Dont simply something so much that it becomes less useful. In our exact situation, I dont think we should dumb the experience down that much, becuase it means that we dont have to learn anything. I think a good Idiotocracy movie refence would fit here.Volhout wrote:One thing I do think however, is that "dumming down" a product does pay off. Allowing me (and you) to tinker around, but at the same time have something that is "iPhone-simple (or Android-simple)" is valuable. Just few icons on the desktop, or menu, but keep the terminal. And the "home" folder should contain only "documents" and "music" and "pictures". Much more confusing now.
Ok Now I'm confused. First you were talking about adding in more applications, now you're talking about taking them out? Also keep in mind that sometimes there are multiple menu entries becuase a program can do more than on thin. Example: MtPaint. it can take screenshots but it can also be an graphic editor. So its one program with two entries. Even if you'd go and remove almost everything, you're not saving that much space. And here we get into the debate of what should stay and what should go. For 'you' an FTP server is dumb to have, but for another user it may be very useful. I dont know if we've had a community wide discussion about default apps in a while... but most of the things are there for a good reason. Personally I think dialup can go; except for the fact that I know that there are people here that need dialup networking still. If you want a custom designed release that has your software and nothing more... contact a dev and offer them some beer money to remaster a CD for you.Volhout wrote:About Slacko, and "what to remove"...... actually I just last night used the "remove buildin packages" tool and was looking what I could do to ThinSlacko to make it smaller.... I removed something 20+ items from the menu's. Things like "ftp server, 2 editors (geany, and abiword are enough), file difference checkers, some process viewers, download complete websites, pzchmview, etc.. all these tools that are for programmers. Nice tool by the way, it also removes the menu items.
Some items are also double. There are 2 programs that take a snapshort from the screen. Just pick one.... 2 programs that inform you how much disk space there is left, 2 scientific calculators, a lot of network tools that I never used. So even in thinslacko there is meat to cut (for me at least).
Perfect analogy!6502coder wrote:Q5sys is absolutely dead on in emphasizing that for certain purposes, such as running a business, Puppy is simply not a good idea. But it seems some people are bent on criticizing a pickup truck for being a lousy limousine...
I figured it was a rhetorical question, I just felt like answering it anyway for those who might have thought 'well yea thats a good question'.6502coder wrote:As for Q5sys's reference to "Psych 101", when I said I didn't understand why people get so obsessed with promoting Puppy, I was just trying to make a point. I understand perfectly well what's going on. It's what leads to cliques in high school and fights at sporting events, and aren't we all the worse off for it? People ought to have the courage of their own convictions.
Agreed6502coder wrote:It saddens me to see so much time wasted arguing about something that is just a mirage anyway. The idea of a standard fat Puppy distro is surely an exercise in futility, quite apart from being a contradition in terms (since Puppy's whole point is to be lean). How can there be a standard fat Puppy when there's no such thing as a standard fat Puppy USER?
You can load a distro up with 2GB of the most popular, most widely-used Linux apps out there, and won't there still be plenty of users complaining that THEIR favorite app isn't included, or who cannot accept a "standard" app that was included? Even something as fundamental as an office productivity suite is rife with controversy. Anyone who thinks that Libre Office (for example) is universally acceptable is simply uninformed.
If the notion of a standard fat Puppy really is valid, and if there really is a crying need for it, then I expect that one will emerge; vacuums do tend to get filled. But I'm not holding my breath.
Q5sys wrote:
Maybe there are others that want to dive into this topic a little more, but for me 01Micko's explanation that Barry will never sanction a FAT puppy. That closes the door. And for me that closes the discussion, as if Barry said it himself.
Volhout wrote:Would you mind making a list of the applications in Slacko 5.6 that you feel need "to go"? Id be interested to hear your opinions.
Q5sys wrote:About Slacko, and "what to remove"...... actually I just last night used the "remove buildin packages" tool and was looking what I could do to ThinSlacko to make it smaller.... I removed something 20+ items from the menu's. Things like "ftp server, 2 editors (geany, and abiword are enough), file difference checkers, some process viewers, download complete websites, pzchmview, etc.. all these tools that are for programmers. Nice tool by the way, it also removes the menu items.
Some items are also double. There are 2 programs that take a snapshort from the screen. Just pick one.... 2 programs that inform you how much disk space there is left, 2 scientific calculators, a lot of network tools that I never used. So even in thinslacko there is meat to cut (for me at least).
Don't be confused....I may have been confused in interpreting "need to go" as "need to remove" in stead of "need to add".Ok Now I'm confused. First you were talking about adding in more applications, now you're talking about taking them out?
Maybe there are others that want to dive into this topic a little more, but for me 01Micko's explanation that Barry will never sanction a FAT puppy. That closes the door. And for me that closes the discussion, as if Barry said it himself.
I like the re-inventions, and I love the variety... Admittedly it does make it difficult when a developer moves on to something else and leaves a user with an "almost working" system - however I do feel that it is the responsibility of the user to track down the missing info, or missing programmes for themselves if the dev has not seen fit to do so.
What the dev offers is a platform upon which the user can add extras if available. I don't think anyone should require a dev to be chained to one version for ten years.
But if the dev chooses to add so much functionality that the pup becomes fat - so much the better! The fatter the pup the more likely it will have the programs the user wants in the long term.
I guess Barry will develop the core puppy to be as small as possible, and to be able to harness the latest source files from whatever is perceived to be the most appropriate source (I guess that is what "woof" is about..)... but if some other dev then takes that foundation and nourishes it till it becomes an obese pup thats great! More programs does not need to mean slower performance.
Vive la fatties!
What the dev offers is a platform upon which the user can add extras if available. I don't think anyone should require a dev to be chained to one version for ten years.
But if the dev chooses to add so much functionality that the pup becomes fat - so much the better! The fatter the pup the more likely it will have the programs the user wants in the long term.
I guess Barry will develop the core puppy to be as small as possible, and to be able to harness the latest source files from whatever is perceived to be the most appropriate source (I guess that is what "woof" is about..)... but if some other dev then takes that foundation and nourishes it till it becomes an obese pup thats great! More programs does not need to mean slower performance.
Vive la fatties!
I`m with stu on the "reinventing the wheel" thing, I`ve seen lots of that here.
Basically it amounts to wasted effort, definitely not productive or desirable.
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.
Some folks here are pillars of Puppy development, I`d think they`d be ready for consensus.
### What do the variant builders think of forming a "sudo fork" of Puppy. Mod. apps. really.
Scripts and apps. that alter Puppy`s setup and behavior, amounting to fixes and "new wheels".
.
Basically it amounts to wasted effort, definitely not productive or desirable.
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.
Some folks here are pillars of Puppy development, I`d think they`d be ready for consensus.
### What do the variant builders think of forming a "sudo fork" of Puppy. Mod. apps. really.
Scripts and apps. that alter Puppy`s setup and behavior, amounting to fixes and "new wheels".
.
I agree. This is why I was in favor of sticking with Slackware for our base. Slackware is solid and is supported for a very long time. Every release of Slackware is in effect an LTS release. I know people who are still supporting Slackware 13.0, from 2009.stu91 wrote:What puppy needs is a solid foundation, none of this constant reinventing the wheel every x months - it would make it so much easier for the community to add to, build for and develop on.
Puppy doesn't need a 'fat' version it needs an 'lts' version.
Ubuntu with its 6 month cycle just changes to much. If we are going to go with a Debian derivative we should just stick with Debian. It's a MUCH more solid and reliable community and Distro. Not to mention all the random stuff Canonical is doing lately with their own Package Format, their own display server, focusing on mobile, etc.
If we have a solid base then we can start to focus on some of the issues that have been a problem in the past. It also means we have resources to go to when things go awry.
I've been happy with the minor and incremental change that the Slacko5 series has had. I dont know if 01Micko has ever released delta files for people to update, but that could help users stay current without too much effort. But since the entire 5.x Slacko series has been based on Slackware 14, its still compatible with itself, aside from some minor issues here and there and kernel versions.
In a perfect world, I'd like to see the upcoming 14.1 Slackware version be the next base. Then as packages are updated we can simply update them in the Repo. As new Kernels become available we can update just those as well. Slackware 14.0 has already been around a year, before its first minor revision, and its been rock solid. The Slackware 13 track lasted over two years.
Slackware has a history of stability and longevity.
But I'm a fan of slackware, I always have been. So I realize I'm a bit biased. But I'd be content with a Debian Base as well.
Once we have a strong foundation we can then work on improving in the areas we can improve in. Since we will be able to standardize things, well be able to make some progress in ways that we havent in the past.
Barry didn't assume anything of the sort. Puppy is a small distro, so everyone understands you may need additional libraries for complex packages. It's fairly simple to figure out what you need and where to get it, but if that's too much trouble, install Ubuntu.simargl wrote:Puppy Linux will never change because its author doesn't want it to change, also BarryK doesn't visit this forum, so if you want to see some progress you'll need to fork it.
When Barry made Puppy based on Ubuntu he wrongly assumed that his pet package manager will be able to install deb packages from Ubuntu's repository directly without problems, and that is not true. It works for simple packages like leafpad, but it's broken with everything more complex and that problem regular, non-technical user can't solve.
The world has changed
simargl wrote:
My thoughts are that if you want positive recognition and respect from your peers (the members of this community) it would be in your best interests to:
Monsie
This seems to be a provocative statement; one that could easily get a rise out of others...Puppy Linux will never change because its author doesn't want it to change, also BarryK doesn't visit this forum, so if you want to see some progress you'll need to fork it.
My thoughts are that if you want positive recognition and respect from your peers (the members of this community) it would be in your best interests to:
- tell the truth,
lose the attitude,
listen to the veteran developers and users,
try being more helpful and less critical toward the Puppy Community.
Monsie
My [u]username[/u] is pronounced: "mun-see". Derived from my surname, it was my nickname throughout high school.