<<<Puppy Linux - What it looks like>>>

[wacossusca34]

I'm pretty new with Linux, but I've tried enough to make a solid statement about some of the flavors out there. I have one suggestion to make for puppy, And since I'm new to these forums, It's probably been discussed before, but I believe its something to seriously consider.

UBUNTU:

Ubuntu One is honestly a beautiful Operating System. It has it's own feel to it, adapting the Macintosh 'Pop Out' side menu. It feels simple, and simple enough without making it look inferior. Ubuntu Is a very nice Lamborghini, With a engine from a old beetle. It's given me some of the slowest and most painful experiences running my Java based server software.

I used to run my server on an older version of Ubuntu - And I didn't for long. Being new to Linux, I went to Peppermint. Peppermint had very little to offer me as well, both systems gave me a fraction of my CPU's capability, as well as constant crashes from common applications. Just recently, I tried the newest Ubuntu - 10.01.

At first, I was breath taken from the smooth, beautiful GUI. The system easily guided me through the installation on my blank hard drive. The installation was, However, very slow. When it finished, I booted from the drive, and got to work getting my favored applications such as Google Chrome... And to be honest, I didn't get anything I wanted. When attempting to install the .deb package with the package manager, The manager itself constantly crashed. The interface at the time started lagging, occasionally freezing. It was not much time before I pulled the plug, and took my handy dandy USB - Puppy.

MAC:

MACOSX is an operating system I have not had much time with. From what I could see, Mac was a very nice solution for a beginner with technology. It's GUI was also very nice, and It's applications were not as slow as Ubuntu's. It served a great document writer, Image editor, and Internet browser. In other words, It's a computer you use in school.

Macs aren't easily modified, And I've found them hard to work with when It comes to running more advanced software. Games are absolutely out of the question with this Operating System. Even though with a better experience with Mac than with Ubuntu, I have also still found it slow compared to Microsoft Windows.

Though, Back to the real point, Macs DO look nice. Especially with their iPhone and iPad, They have really gotten right up there with looking sexy, along with Ubuntu. It is just another Lamborghini, but this time with a bit better engine - Maybe a Volxwagon Jetta? I'm not too advanced with cars.

Microsoft Windows:

Windows is truly nice. It has served me well for years before I discovered Linux. It serves a good gaming platform, and outputs a acceptable speed. I'm familiar with Windows XP and 7, But I have used 98 and 95 in my lifetime. It is well supported, with almost every piece of software made for it. What made windows seem like the standard 'Computer' was how common it was. People tend to 'Go with the Flow' When it comes to technology. That's what drove me to try Ubuntu once more.

Windows does have some flaws though. I have found it is very prone to viruses, as I have encountered enough in my systems, As well as it's instability. From Looking at Windows, Vista in specific, it is very inconsistent when running my servers and eye balling the task manger's CPU level. It's Slower than Puppy, and breaks down far too quickly. You may laugh, But I have had to re-install windows 7 times on one of my computers... And it's not something I'm looking forward to constantly fixing.

Windows is quite attractive, But struggled to catch up to Mac on it's sexiness. Windows XP hung around for a while, and I didn't find It too attractive. Windows Vista and 7 looked much more satisfying for me, it allowed a nice workspace, with the familiar GUI's from the previous versions of windows. By then, people hung onto Windows, and, as I said, Went with the Flow.

To put it into a analogy, Windows is just a plain, common car. It brings you were you want it, and can handle a little off road adventures. This car is a decent bit faster than a Mac, but It's not any sports car.

PUPPY:

Puppy looked horrible when I first started It up. It was difficult to get used to, and my knowledge of computers had to guide me around the odd system. Some may say Puppy was not made for a full time, common OS, But I believe it has that potential. After some tweaking, and learning from the website, I had my Linux on a handy 32GB USB drive to go wherever I go. I found later about it's extraordinary speed, and tried it with my servers. I noticed a HUGE difference in speed, and I adapted it to all of my computers as my main OS.

I actually 'fixed' several people's dead computers with puppy. One laptop had a LOAD of malicious software on it, one didn't even boot Windows, and the other was just plain old slow. I introduced puppy to these people, and almost wet my pants looking at their computer's speed. I was particularly amused by the owner of the laptop that never booted. 'It has never worked before... What did you do?'

Puppy is also one of the more difficult flavors to use, in my perspective. It has nothing to show you around, and the GUI looks like it was produced years ago. Puppy is the beetle, with a Lamborghini engine crammed into it.

THE POINT:

Puppy Linux has the potential of being a full fledged OS, and much prettier as well. If you could get Puppy to feel as smooth, and guiding as Ubuntu, It would redefine how everyone looks at it. New users would take a first glance at it, and like it.

Many people say not to judge a Book by it's cover, but many do. The people that open that book and read it before taking it out, are the ones that end up with Linux. Many people look at some HP windows computers, or Macintosh's and like it because it seems so welcoming. What's behind that cover though, Is an unstable, flawed OS.

What would redefine Linux, Is a book with a shiny cover, and a good story behind it. Puppy can do that, And that, my friends, is my suggestion.

Make Puppy One damn good OS.

[Moose On The Loose]

Microsoft Windows:

Windows is truly nice. It has served me well for years before I discovered Linux.

I found that I could use Windows 98 well enough and that I sort of liked it but I found XP to be just awful. My two main gripes about the GUI are:

1) I only manage to meet the timing requirements of a "double click" about 50% of the time. It is very annoying.

2) The way the drag and drop file moving is arranged, if you sneeze, you may loose your file forever. Oh yes, it is still on the disk somewhere but there is no obvious way to tell where exactly you just put it.

Windows does have some flaws though. I have found it is very prone to viruses,

Microsoft won't let you download the service pack on a Linux box and then install it on the XP machine. This meant that the first copy of XP I worked with was infected before I finished installing the service packs. It was not usable at all.

Puppy looked horrible when I first started It up.

I very much liked the look of puppy-4.31 from when I first saw it. It had nice icons that I could understand with a desktop that didn't get in my way.

Puppy Linux has the potential of being a full fledged OS, and much prettier as well.

As far as I am concerned, Puppy is a full fledged OS. It does everything I need to do. It gets it done quickly. I didn't have as much trouble learning it as I did learning Windows so I say that it is far easier to use than Windows.

What would redefine Linux, Is a book with a shiny cover, and a good story behind it. Puppy can do that, And that, my friends, is my suggestion.

A nice looking well written book on Puppy Linux would be very nice.

[einar]

yes give us KDE4 and Gnome3 on Luci 525.

Pretty please ?

Best regards

Einar

[2byte]

wacossusca34 and Einar,

Take a look at Macpup and Lighthouse Pup

http://macpup.org/macpup525.php

http://www.lhpup.org/about.htm

[wacossusca34]

Microsoft Windows:

Windows is truly nice. It has served me well for years before I discovered Linux.

I found that I could use Windows 98 well enough and that I sort of liked it but I found XP to be just awful. My two main gripes about the GUI are:

1) I only manage to meet the timing requirements of a "double click" about 50% of the time. It is very annoying.

2) The way the drag and drop file moving is arranged, if you sneeze, you may loose your file forever. Oh yes, it is still on the disk somewhere but there is no obvious way to tell where exactly you just put it.

Windows does have some flaws though. I have found it is very prone to viruses,

Microsoft won't let you download the service pack on a Linux box and then install it on the XP machine. This meant that the first copy of XP I worked with was infected before I finished installing the service packs. It was not usable at all.

Puppy looked horrible when I first started It up.

I very much liked the look of puppy-4.31 from when I first saw it. It had nice icons that I could understand with a desktop that didn't get in my way.

Puppy Linux has the potential of being a full fledged OS, and much prettier as well.

As far as I am concerned, Puppy is a full fledged OS. It does everything I need to do. It gets it done quickly. I didn't have as much trouble learning it as I did learning Windows so I say that it is far easier to use than Windows.

What would redefine Linux, Is a book with a shiny cover, and a good story behind it. Puppy can do that, And that, my friends, is my suggestion.

A nice looking well written book on Puppy Linux would be very nice.

Clearly we are looking at the situation the same way. I was taking the suggestion from a common person's point of view.

Some people found puppy a full OS, And I do as well, But the people who seem new to Linux, dislike the interface, as well as the odd organization of programs compared to Mac and Windows.

Linux is all about what's inside of it. Most people Don't recognize it. I'm sure It would be more popular, and easier to use if it had an Interface similar to Ubuntu or MACOSX. Again, what I said; People Usually judge the book by it's cover.

How it feels to the common user, is everything.

EDIT: also, as I forgot to add in, Puppy IS much easier to use than Windows. Just from my recent experience with Ubuntu is what inspired me to write this. If puppy could get even better and look like that, It would be a much better looked upon OS.

I do have some Linux-Guru friends that believe puppy is an emergency OS, or something to fix your computer. One person in particular believed this, Also inspiring me to write this - For those people who believe that.

[wacossusca34]

wacossusca34 and Einar,

Take a look at Macpup and Lighthouse Pup

http://macpup.org/macpup525.php

http://www.lhpup.org/about.htm

I see those are a bit more like what I was hoping for, But after all, This is the origanal Puppy Linux forums, Not MacPup or Lighthouse.

I want the origanal Puppy That I know to be like something everyone can know.

- Lighthouse pup does look over the top with the screenshots on the website. It appears too vibrant, and can increase the feel of complexity of the OS. Those extra windows open don't help the preview of the OS either.

-MacPup is much more what I like, But I belive some people were to belive Mac is an inferior OS by now. Ubuntu Catches my eye, guides me through everywhere, and provides an excellent first impression. Windows Vista/7 also attracted many to upgrade from their old XP computers, an neither Systems had a bad reputation to begin with. Most people with a slight knowledge with computers would realize Windows is a lot better than a Mac, Unless all you do is check your facebook.

I'm talking about the Origanal Puppy, That is what needs the tuning up. I see that some users prefer the older interface, so an option on first startup to switch to the older GUI would also be a decent request to add in.

[ttuuxxx]

Also 2.14X has a clean look and feel to it, Its only around 125MB with Firefox6. Comes with xfce taskbar and metacity themes that change the looks drastically and easily with the custom desktop theme changer. It also has jwm for the people who like jwm,
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=42553
below is just 4 of the metacity themes, 2.14X has over 20 of them
ttuuxxx

[r1tz]

well... it really depends how you perceive "nice looking".

There is what I think looking good is:

1)Everything blends in with one another. transparency normally helps a lot.

2)Smooth animation -- this gives a "feel" to the system.

3)Non-plain. Also known as style.

Those are what give the "look & feel".

----

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, blah blah blah.

Like if you were to ask me if 4.3 looked nice, I would say not.
The desktop is very well layout. However, I found that the default background didn't suit very well.
You might say that I could just change my background, but what I am trying to point out here is the importance of the default look.

And like the latest 5.2.5
I found that the fbpanel's menu did not blend in.

Of course this is just my views. Others might think that it looked perfect.

----

So what I meant to say after all that nonsense is:

Default look & feel is important..

The choice of distro can be decided based on that. Esp if the user is not too tech-savy or lazy.

EDIT: Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to have a great default.

[ttuuxxx]

The look & feel of 2.14X out of the box is second to none for the size of it, I used the latest gnome icons and some I made, I also made a gtk2 icon theme to match the blue colours, and the puppy paws for the decorations are one of the graphics I made a couple years ago and add them to metacity. Lighthouse and macpup are almost double the size of 2.14x, my combo only added around 1.5MB extra for metacity and xfce taskbar. Puppy Linux is about size first and foremost, bling is always 4th or 5th on a list. Also you mentioned 4.2, I did all the icewm themes on 4.2, zigbert did the icons and background. The icewm themes I did were ground breaking in file size, icewm themes at that time were around 1MB each I managed to get them down to 30kb +/- which was really cool .

Default puppy will never be able to default gnome or kde gui just because of the size and extra libs that would bloat puppy, but we have had kde and gnome versions of puppy in the past that regular users have contributed to this forum for download.

If you want to change the default look, then what I suggest is do your homework, I've spent maybe 100hrs just on rox mimes, creating them and/or using gnome/gtk etc icons and reducing the size of them to 1/4 the original size. Barry will not take large icons files etc.
Then compile something that works and sort the bugs, like what I did with 2.14X with metacity and xfce, they do make a great small lite on resources combo. And then make some pets and let people try it.
Trust me it takes lots of time and patience.

ttuuxxx

[RHubert787]

Default look & feel is important..

The choice of distro can be decided based on that. Esp if the user is not too tech-savy or lazy.

I agree, a screenshot of the desktop speaks a million words to me.

It's almost like when you see someone, and decide whether or not you would get along with them based on how their dressed and how they present themselves. But like wacossusca said, you can't always judge a book by it's cover. You may be missing out on a good relationship or your favorite linux os.


And to add, I'm definitely no expert, but wouldn't adding all that gui gunk slow stuff up, and ruin the simplicity of puppy?

I currtently use BrowserLinux 401 and am liking it very much. It is great.

[ttuuxxx]

Hi RHubert most of my gui's like the theme selector, print manager, pet uninistaller are bash scripts with nice icons, the code is around 1kb each.
I keep them really small and simple to use.
below is 3 of them
ttuuxxx

[`f00]

If you have a great default, there's not much incentive to learn (I owe Puppy this - funny how some of the testers have been downright tire-bitin' ugly to my eyes and it's pretty hard to step out in an off-the-rack 'official' suit .. since p42 anyway, imo ). Puplets are another story.

Lazy? Get a tablet and/or a smartphone whatever, do the Cloud and peace out </tic>

Thanxx for the spot-on screenies &…etc, ttuuxxx

Look'n'Feel - a multi-wm setup does this in spades, it can be as light or heavy as you wish - getting under the hood is mostly part of the deal (example: I'm not wild about rox as other than a glorified fm). Sure I get 'lost' sometimes, but no matter where I go there I am more-or-less ^·^

For me, less is more but well-ground spice helps in small doses to flavor the dish :9
screenies? I've probably puked out a few (mostly as links) in various places..

[wacossusca34]

Default look & feel is important..

The choice of distro can be decided based on that. Esp if the user is not too tech-savy or lazy.

I agree, a screenshot of the desktop speaks a million words to me.

It's almost like when you see someone, and decide whether or not you would get along with them based on how their dressed and how they present themselves. But like wacossusca said, you can't always judge a book by it's cover. You may be missing out on a good relationship or your favorite linux os.


And to add, I'm definitely no expert, but wouldn't adding all that gui gunk slow stuff up, and ruin the simplicity of puppy?

I currtently use BrowserLinux 401 and am liking it very much. It is great.

The default theme is EVERYTHING to an OS. It may seem like such a small thing, but it's the core of the first impression.

r1tz - Agreed, exept for the non-plain part. Being plain is what allows a user to feel comfortable. If you have an OS that pops out too much, it's too vibrant, making it somewhat unwelcoming in my perspective.

ttuuxxx - It's not What I prefer, It's the default theme theme that EVERYONE sees when they first boot up puppy. It has a lot of room for improvement. Most people won't change the book's cover to make it look more attractive... The publishers have to do that themselves.

`f00 - Knowing what is under that hood is not everything. It takes dedication, and curiosity for someone to peek in there and use it for what it's for. Most people will look at the default and judge a large amount from that. Us Linux nerds know the cover doesn't mean a thing, but were talking about everyone who looks at this. It's disappointing when some great Systems are thrown away because of their foul look.

[sc0ttman]

Stu90 is a user on this forum who always makes his Puppies look gorgeous, take a look at his work..

[bugman]

anything that increases the size of the download without enhancing actual function is a waste of bandwidth

imho

[disciple]

Yes.

[RHubert787]

Just came across this and thought it was worth a mention here.

Gorgeous interface, and make sure you look through the rest of the thread as he is constantly adding new great pictures.

(sorry I would have posted the jpg, but I am at work using my wifi cellphone at a McDonalds to post)

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=69353



But yes, I agree wacossusca, there is always room for improvement and more personal expression. I wish I could code more and contribute more. But Not me not yet.

And thanks for the lesson ttuuxxx, looks great!

I currently use BrowserLinux401

[einar]

wacossusca34 and Einar,

Take a look at Macpup and Lighthouse Pup

http://macpup.org/macpup525.php

http://www.lhpup.org/about.htm

Ive tested both and E17 vm in Macpup looks good. ive recomended macpup to many ppl. (ppl that do not configure anything just expect beauty out of the box ) Im currently testing lighthouse64bit and am amazed. Tazoc is planning a KDE sfs and i cant wait for the pup to evolve Ttuuxxx 2.14x is looking very good and i do not expect a KDE4 on a puppy 2 version. Most of my hardware is of newer date and i want to leave windoze for good. But im still struggling, though there is light at the end of the tunnel. I have permanently installed puppy linux on 2 of my laptops and 1 of the htpc`s.

To all that makes officials and derivatives thanks for giving me a hobby
and thanks for possibility to use my old laptops to show off

best regards

Einar

[r1tz]

I'm sorry if my previous post sounded accusatory or offensive, i didn't mean it in that way.

Anyway, for "not plain", I personally believe that as long as it blends in, there won't be a problem.
A great way to avoid being "plain" it go give simple patterns rather then just filling with a simple color.
One example of this being used is in windows7, when you press alt-tab, then hold down "alt". You can see that they used a simple gradient instead of being "plain"

[ttuuxxx]

Ttuuxxx 2.14x is looking very good and i do not expect a KDE4 on a puppy 2 version.

best regards

Einar

Hi Einar If I find that I have lots of extra time on my hands I'll see what I can do
2.14x started off as a puppy 2 version, but I updated about 80% of the backend and apps gradually, The main things I kept original is the kernel, Xorg, squash file system. So it would work better with older kits, but the glibc is now the same version as Puppy 5 Wary, The Gtk/Glib is new than most puppy 5 versions, The gcc is the same version as Wary. I had to update glibc so that Firefox 4,5,6,7 would work on it
Yes its a 2 series puppy but its a lot more modern than 4 series, It has been a gradual upgrade over 2.5 Years since I started this release update. That's why the tread is almost 300 pages and more than 1/2 million views
It still has a few minor limits but works on most modern pc's
ttuuxxx