The Future of Puppy Linux

[RetroTechGuy]

Edit- delete (something crashed, and apparently posted)

[puppyite]

because puppyite and the likes does not care about our feelings here. sorry guys i am emotional here.

Why should I? I don’t see anyone worrying about my feelings.

This is a discussion forum, not a lonely hearts club.

If I were worried about feelings, mine or anyone else’s, I’d post in a forum that focuses on such things.

[RetroTechGuy]

The only thing "sacred" about Puppy's size is that it tied to its support for older hardware that doesn't have the RAM to allow loading a full CD into memory to run! The "number" was, and has always been, related to the capacity of the hardware to let Puppy to run in modest RAM. There is still a lot of usable hardware out there that has 512Mb or less, and that's Puppy's niche. You don't like the niche? Go invent your own Puppy; reprise Fat Dog if you must. Just stop insisting that official Puppy meet your expectations in some mythological war between the various OS.

What I'd like to see (or identify the appropriate version) is one that runs pretty well on 128MB. I booted one machine with 64MB, but it was painful -- marginally functional once up, and a swap file was installed (I actually had more RAM than that to install, but was testing how small for booting). The doesn't need to be the main version, but rather a nice stripped down Retro version (I should note that I haven't fully tested ttuuxxx's 2.14 Top 7 -- and haven't tried it on such a machine yet).

Historically, Win98 would run pretty well in 128 MB, if you weren't doing anything too fancy. For email and browsing it was pretty good.

Puppy is just a little more memory intensive, and for similar performance, I think it needs at least 256 MB, and probably more like 512 MB... A little lower memory requirements, and many more machines could be well supported...

Not really a direct answer but.......
A lot of effort was put into keeping Lucid 525 small enough to load into ram on a computer with 256 MB of ram and allow removing the disc allowing use of the optical drive.
Lucid Retro is only about 2 mb larger (extra dialup modem drivers) and it won't load into 256 MB....the margin is that close.
On anything around 128 MB ram I've found that the Ttuuxxx tweaked Turbopup Dillo runs pretty darn well.It's fairly small and has a lot of non-essential services off by default.YMMV.

Well, I installed 5.20 on a machine like this: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64548

But I suspect that was the exception, not the rule. And I did have more than 128MB RAM.

I've been really happy with 5.20 (haven't tried 5.25 yet). I ran 4.3.1 for quite some time, before moving on -- 5.20 is "snappier" than 4.3.1.

I played briefly with an older version of ttuxxx's 2.14 on my 333MHz, but haven't tried the latest (top7). I tried Top7 on my 750MHz Duron tower, and it booted, but when I installed, I ended up with machine lockups -- haven't gotten back to track the cause of that (since it runs 5.20 wonderfully, my primary use system on that -- it also has 4.3.1 frugal, Debian, Win98, SageMath...)

Incidentally, how about this thought... At the moment, we have main versions, retro versions, small versions, etc... What if the next version, in addition to the usual 100MB-ish "main version" ISO, had an ISO that was the "Uber Installer" (as long as it fits on a CD) -- which would boot, look at hardware, suggest a version/size.

Oh, you only have a 200 MHz CPU, and 96MB of RAM, I recommend that you use the Retro-Lite version for your system.

While the increased size if not nice for downloading, many of those I know download an ISO, burn some disks and hand them out. So...

The "Uber Installer" could have multiple .SFS and perhaps the Devx as well... The default boot could look exactly like the normal 100MB-ish "main version" boot. But buried (or not so buried) options would access additional packages. The CD boot system could also help the user create a swap file, to manage the memory limitations (some of the older systems did this automagically).

The Retro-Lite could be stripped down much further than the main version (with a useful, but substantially more limited software bundle). Keeping in mind that someone with a 200 MHz computer, probably isn't expecting to do much more than web browsing and email (and many/most do their email through their browser). We seem to forever have someone come into the groups asking "how do I uninstall all of these packages that I don't use".

Another thought, since we already use an overlay filesystem, perhaps the Retro-lite could use a .SFS for "full package" and a memory-loaded "core utilities", which was a much smaller subset. If running from CD, the basics would be in RAM, the rest of the tools are on CD, but slower to load (as they read from CD). When I run Knoppix 5.1.1 it seems to exhibit a behavior something like that (well, it couldn't fit into RAM, so it had to do that). Suppose the Retro-Lite only used 40MB RAM, but had little special support in memory, and would need to access the disk for those "special requests".

Likewise if the user does a frugal install on the HDD -- keep only the basics in RAM (note: I stop Puppy from loading the .SFS to RAM, even on machines with much memory, and let it read from the HDD instead)

[RetroTechGuy]

Finally, we're back on-topic.

Now if we could only get the whiner(s) who started the thread to contribute to the process, rather than trying to highjack it.

I run Puppy from a multisession DVD. My computer has more RAM than 32-bit Puppy can use, but I still like it that Puppy is smaller than most other (relatively) full-featured distros. Even at a svelte 120 MB, Puppy's main sfs takes a while to load from a DVD. If Barry can continue to keep the essential Puppy small, I say good on him.

Yeah, that's still too big and takes too long to load. I wonder if we could split the .SFS into "essential services" which must be loaded, and "add ons" which could be loaded.

Really, if the essential services came up and the system was running, the "add ons" could be loaded in the background, without slowing the user.

So the boot would

-- load essentials
-- GUI running

===> user is happy

-- background process: load remaining apps to RAM (or not, as the user desires, or RAM permits).

[jonyo]

hey whodo, how's about if you and your type don't like it

or have such difficulty with some opposing views

y'all just leave

everyone can read what YOU had to say (and HOW you go about it) and decide for themselves

[RetroTechGuy]

What I'd like to see (or identify the appropriate version) is one that runs pretty well on 128MB. I booted one machine with 64MB, but it was painful -- marginally functional once up, and a swap file was installed (I actually had more RAM than that to install, but was testing how small for booting). The doesn't need to be the main version, but rather a nice stripped down Retro version (I should note that I haven't fully tested ttuuxxx's 2.14 Top 7 -- and haven't tried it on such a machine yet).

Historically, Win98 would run pretty well in 128 MB, if you weren't doing anything too fancy. For email and browsing it was pretty good.

Puppy is just a little more memory intensive, and for similar performance, I think it needs at least 256 MB, and probably more like 512 MB... A little lower memory requirements, and many more machines could be well supported...

The original reprise of 2.14 ... namely 2.14R by Dougal et al ... was such a beast. It may even have been the basis of ttuuxxx's 2.14xx reprise. Either way that and 2.17.1 should run nicely in 128Mb. That was the version I used to put on refurbushed P1 and PII machines for charity way back when. We almost never had 256Mb to play with and our average was 96Mb. You would always need a swap partition with 64Mb and below, even back to 2.01 IIRC.

I'll go back and look at those (there are so many older versions, that it was hard to tell which ones might work). What I like about ttuuxxx's is that they will be "up to date", where the older 2.1x versions may no be compatible with new browsers (and the older browsers are not supported, so...).

Incidentally, I have a similar set of old computers that I'd like to configure and give away.... I need to thin my "herd" of Retro machines...

[puppyite]

I have updated the OP.

[jonyo]

and whodo, given what you have had to say here for all to see,

when it comes to credibility and speaking of puppy, you are irrelevant

others, one former puppy user at least who has left

have even written about your struggles here on outside blogs

where their views contrast sharply with your conclusions

in your own mind

[hillside]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E ... McCoy_feud

[RetroTechGuy]

DangerDog! is not a general interest version. Its sole purpose is to entice and trap malware. It’s probably not a good idea to allow the average Puppy user direct access to caged malware -- too much chance of harm to themselves and others. It's a game for adults and there are few of those in the Puppy community.

Entice malware? Wait.. huh? You going to have some scantily clad software out there hoping to lure in some malware who's too busy looking at some luscious bits?
How are you going to entice software which is largely user installed? (using the win malware model)

A virtual malware "honeypot"...

Wait, this sound almost up your alley, Q5sys... AttackPup could have a more passive "don't hurt me, I'm weak" play-mode, to look for attacking outside threats... Could be interesting...

[8-bit]

New Policy

IGNORE THE HECKLERS!

Result?

Back on track with topic.

[8-bit]

I dug out my crayons.

How do you like it?

[puppyite]

In the OP I made the case that the wisest decision ever made was to incorporate Ubuntu software in Puppy Linux. I still believe this to be the case.

In contrast I believe that basing Puppy Linux 5.3 (or whatever next designation is) on Slackware is the worst decision imaginable.

It is a fact that who you associate with sends a signal about who you are and what you stand for. IMO associating Puppy Linux with Slackware sends a very bad message.

My opinion based on what I read is that Slackware is one is the worst if not the worst distro available. I would characterize it as a “fundamentalist distro

[jonyo]

you start an association with the ubuntu stuff, never sort it out to leave a mess for all the world to see

then next start again somewhere else hmmmmm

[James C]

For some reason I don't think puppyite will need to request for this thread to be locked....if you can't defend your idea just insult and belittle those who disagree.
What an original and certainly novel idea.

[jonyo]

perhaps you have something to say other than inanities

[jonyo]

ummm you may not have noticed it's par for the course here

why do you single out puppyite???

For some reason I don't think puppyite will need to request for this thread to be locked....if you can't defend your idea just insult and belittle those who disagree.
What an original and certainly novel idea.

[James C]

perhaps you have something to say other than inanities

Perhaps you would like to stay on topic. Yet another novel idea.

[James C]

ummm you may not have noticed it's par for the course here

why do you single out puppyite???

For some reason I don't think puppyite will need to request for this thread to be locked....if you can't defend your idea just insult and belittle those who disagree.
What an original and certainly novel idea.

Actually the forum is messing up,thank you very much.

[jonyo]

that's what i figured you have nothing to say