The INSTALL TEST -- Puppy versus the rest

[benali72]

I support about a dozen Linux computers. I try to put Ubuntu and Puppy on all of them.

So here are the numbers from what I like to call The Install Test. How many fresh installs and/or upgrades does Puppy fail at, versus Ubuntu?

Puppy -- 0 failures, 14 successes
Ubuntu -- 2 failures, 1 partial failure, 1 success after much work, 10 conplete successes

What's really frustrating about Ubuntu is when you have a computer working with one version, then try to upgrade and the newer release fails! Older Ubuntu releases sometimes work better than newer ones, depending on the hardware.

I've never had this problem with Puppy. Puppy's got superior hardware-recognition facilities, in my experience.

I heartily applaud Puppy's slogan "IT JUST WORKS" because it sure does save me a lot of time versus Ubuntu.

Just call me a fan of the Dog.

[nooby]

Yes but it depends on what one mean saying "upgrades ".

Puppy usually are very good at fresh installs when the kernel is okay with the hardware one have. But "upgrades". Depends on if you insist to use the pupsave file again and again. Some puppy devs warn that maybe some Lib dependencies get broken if one just "upgrade" that way.

So better to do a fresh install and then look at the dependencies and maybe many programs can be used as is but some need to get fresh from the PPM to be compatible but sure some do report them can reuse same pupsave over and over again.

I love puppy and would not exchange for Ubuntu ever.

[alienjeff]

Exhaustive study, vast multitude of test boxes, copious documentation of the test and results.

It is settled then.

</sarcasm>

[nooby]

AJ I have not followed your whereabouts but the little I remember is that you love Arch?

I managed to boot an Arch that was a bit different.

here is my frugal install of it oops here is link
http://godane.wordpress.com/

title Archiso-live don't allow me to write
root (hd0,2)
kernel /archiso/boot/vmlinuz from=/dev/sda3/archiso rw elevator=deadline load=overlay session=xfce
initrd /archiso/boot/initrd.img

by Godane but he is into Slitaz now him trying to make his own version of it.

Archiso was the only arch I managed to boot in frugal install on NTFS formatted internal hdd.

Would you say that Archiso live is better than Puppy and Ubuntu?

Like many linux when one boot them live they don't allow that one change the HDD to read write them insist it should only be read and not written to. Such with this one too but it was not bad at all.

Waring I am not sarcastic. I am dead serious!

[alienjeff]

My only experience with Arch has been with their official core release and conventional full hd installs. Quite honestly, I couldn't be bothered with wasting my time on splinter projects or forks. YMMOMNV (your milage may or may not vary).