Posted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 16:47
A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux
or
A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX
or
A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX
READ-ONLY Archive
https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/
Devices are slow, and a mounted Squash file`s data size is reduced compared to raw files.One other member of the Puppy community has been working with JamesBond on a system implementation where SFS would be expanded at startup time and the compression-decompression would never occur in system operations. This has merit in the systems performance.
Ah yes, @Sunburnt.sunburnt wrote:gcmartin; I have shown that Squash files are faster when mounted from a partition.
If the mount point is in ram, like: /tmp then resolving the mount point is faster also. ... .
Yes AND No.MochiMoppel wrote:I've noticed that you even took the trouble to remove the save option from rc.shutdown.
Also, please: do have a first or maybe a second search on the forum for my (RSH, R-S-H) postings AND SFS P.L.U.S. and/or RunScript/s.All this to prevent the use of a simple and pretty reliable save solution in favour of a undocumented private "solution"?
It is made first for discussion about what the title says and second, to promote this concept of a modular use of an operating system - in this here case: Puppy Linux (as the title stated).I appreciate your efforts and all the work and new ideas that went into Lazy Puppy and I understand your desire to promote this work (one of the reasons for this thread?),
Of course, I'm not. I'm just an enthusiastic and convinced Artist!Aren't you a bit carried away in your crusade for modularization?
I don't see how basically merging the package list of the Package Manager into the menu makes it more modular than other Puppies.
No!I remember (Lucid?) which didn't even came with a browser. Had to be selected, downloaded and installed. Not modular?
This here is NOT about LazY Puppy, but to give an answer:Previous Puppies came with 2 window managers, now with only one, Lazy comes with 3. Which one is more modular?
I don't know what this does to your system and I even don't care about how this would/should be named.I have a collection of sfs and pet files on my HD, which I load when I need them, but I use something that you call a "Non-Modular Operating System". Does it make my system half-modular?
These 30 MB (GZ compression for example) could result in 100 MB uncompressed files (dependent to what is inside the the compressed file). Using XZ compression could result in even a lot of more need space for the uncompressed files.Puppy is tiny. What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?
Yes, very good point!mikeb wrote:As for the modular argument I did suggest before that all software could come as an sfs and the package manager would simply extract those for anyone using a convention save or a full install... so reducing the need for software in 2 forms..pet and sfs. That would also mean less space needed for the install process and less bandwidth.
Could you please add some further information here?simargl5 wrote:A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX
sunburnt wrote:# So as I say... There`s a lot to like about Squash files,
Well, your suggestion about using modules is similar to how Slax works, it can load unlimited number of modules - they are called bundles, but actually they are same as sfs modules- and every program or library is provided only as sb bundle, so there is no installing packages in standard way, only activating and deactivating of bundles. Also, dependencies are resolved automatically.RSH wrote:Could you please add some further information here?simargl5 wrote:A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX
Since I'm mostly online with ~10 KB/s, I'm not really able to search the web for this).
I have seen already up to 8 and, no: I'm not confused.mikeb wrote:simargl5 there seem to be lots of you from 1-5 ..I am confused.
This would, could and possibly should be another point of discussion, since I did not meant poor people staying hungry in poor countries; I meant the fat German beer drinking soccer and car-racing fans, that would do each illegal (because of not paying taxes, which we do call "Schwarzarbeit") Job to get some money that weren't really needed. You'll find them in each and every more or less rich country. But again: please, do not start and/or continue any off topic discussion here.starhawk wrote:just objecting to an incorrect assumption
Ok, I see now.mavrothal wrote:They do not download to RAM or a destination that you define. So you can not use/test them on first boot.
I'm not talking for a none-use of a save layer in general.BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
I have read about LightHouse64 "Mariner" version, but I don't own a 64bit computer and so, I could not check it out.gcmartin wrote:How many of this thread have seen @TaZoC's Puppy's LightHouse64 "Mariner" version?
If you haven't seen it and you have a 64bit capable PC, you may want to take a moment;
Pity, if so, as it seems to have done/executed nothing to the evolution of Puppy Linux.If so, @TaZoC's distro implementation, an over 2 year old implementation I might add, may have gone in a direction which is being discussed in this thread.
For what a Judge would be needed in this here case?You be the Judge.
simargl5 wrote:Well, your suggestion about using modules is similar to how Slax works, it can load unlimited number of modules - they are called bundles, but actually they are same as sfs modules- and every program or library is provided only as sb bundle, so there is no installing packages in standard way, only activating and deactivating of bundles. Also, dependencies are resolved automatically.
Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?mikeb wrote:...inspired by SLAX 6
Exactly!Customise each machine easily.... just throw in whats needed for each situation.
I used your shutdown GUI. I selected to reboot and I also selected the create save file option: The screen went black and the computer became unresponsive. Had to do a hard reset. Again my point: You replaced a perfectly usable standard solution with a ...OK, never mind.RSH wrote:Please, do have a look again into /etc/rc.d and you'll find 3 (three) rc.shutdown files.
As there are:
new-rc.shutdown
orig-rc.shutdown
rc.shutdown
I'm using this to switch a option to create a save file (if wanted), which is able to be switched on/off by LazY Puppy's Shutdown-GUI.
No!MochiMoppel wrote:I think you missed my point.
Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.MochiMoppel wrote:It's not about the bug, it's about your goal.
I don't want to achieve anything, because obviously you can't really achieve anything in Puppy Linux - except for your own needs and your own build and used OS. If it was true, what gcmartin stated about Lighthouse Mariner, one would not need to take LazY Puppy for comparison.What do you want to achieve?
No!MochiMoppel wrote:You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?
This question has been bugging me for quite some time. I do not want/need this layer. I see it as redundant, as all my puppies run in pupmode=5 - no save file. Is there a way to remove it ... editing this part of init?mavrothal wrote:BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
Code: Select all
##########################LOADING PUPPY FILES###########################
RAMSIZE=`free | grep -o 'Mem: .*' | tr -s ' ' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` #total physical ram (less shared video). 110405
CRYPTO=""
STATUS=0
#decide the mount-points...
#unionfs layers: RW (top) RO1 RO2 PUPMODE
#full install, flash drive: tmpfs PDEV1 3
#First boot (or pfix=ram): tmpfs pup_xxx.sfs 5
#pup_save is a partition: PDEV1 pup_xxx.sfs 6
#ditto, but flash drive: tmpfs PDEV1 pup_xxx.sfs 7
#Normal running puppy: pup_save.3fs pup_xxx.sfs 12
#ditto, but flash drive: tmpfs pup_save.3fs pup_xxx.sfs 13
#Multisession cd/dvd: tmpfs folders(tmpfs2) pup_xxx.sfs 77
CREATETMPFS="";CREATEPDEV1="";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="";CREATEFOLDERS=""
case $PUPMODE in #w003 changed some save-layer to 'ro+wh' so that whiteouts files are recognised...
3) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1"
OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh";;
5) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
OLDFILESMNTPT="";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
6) CREATEPDEV1="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
7) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
12) CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
13) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
77) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEFOLDERS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
*) RDSH="yes";; #precaution.
esac
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why. For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.RSH wrote:Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.
Then why take the trouble to change things?I don't want to achieve anything
Carried away again? If someone can't explain why something has to be changed, then I don't change. I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).
Just do what you want. I don't care about. I can live with and without any of your decisions related to Puppy Linux.MochiMoppel wrote:I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?
Obviously you can NOT read!I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why.
If you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what to read at these two linked posts-, you would have noticed the following:
To not to be offend, I will assume (as a positive to you): you must have been blind, that moment!... ... ... - and I don't see why.
This first sentence was (markup added by me):For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.
This is just the intro sentence and it is also just the truth. I don't use a save file at all. That's what I wanted to be made clear at first. To let the people know, that I'm able to use much more applications with the smallest Operating Systems (in Size) compared to any other Puppy Linux OS.Me wrote:As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
Why don't you complain about that?If I want such settings to be permanently in the OS, I'm just doing a remaster.
This is a very good example for the differences of compressed and uncompressed sizes related to the previous question by MochiMoppel:Me wrote:To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.
15 MB (uncompressed) * 1024 = 15,360 KB (uncompressed)What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?
There are hundreds of Linux/GNU distros out there developed by smart and capable persons, because each one covers a slightly different niche.RSH wrote: Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?