Some thoughts on Puppy Linux from a newbee

[elroy]

Puppy Linux. Such a juvenal name (it reeks of fun!); such a mature distro!
I’m a Windows refugee, a Linux nu-bee. I began my computer experience on a Commodore 128, using Basic on the command line (and Basic and/or Assembly for programming), and soon migrated to MS-DOS (actually enjoyed 5.0). Hated 3.1, was fine with 98/XP, and despised Vista (I tossed a new computer in the dumpster because of Vista - at times I have a short fuse). My final experience was with Windows 7 (which I actually liked, but not enough to overcome my aversion to Microsoft’s predatory attitude towards their customer base, even though I believe C# to be the best programming language to date, interpreted or not. Hell, I was even satisfied with MFC 6.0, as cumbersome as the learning curve was, but by then that was obsolete in the MS world. Much as Turbo Pascal was before it. With MS, you could never stay current; you were always being subjected to obsolescence. I guess that’s what I most resent about my MS experience as it relates to software development. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for progress. But I’m also a firm believer in K.I.S.S. If it works, don’t fix it! I’ll admit, MASM was attractive at one point; even JASM. It is approaching high-level. If only it was portable...).
So, after 22 years, I finally cut the cord with Microsoft. It was not an easy thing to do. But I realized that I could do everything I could do with Windows 7 (except watching Netflix and C# development) that I could do with Ubuntu 10.10. I have a “smart t.v.

[sunburnt]

If Puppy ( or any distro. ) were based on a Squash file package system
adding and removing apps. becomes seamless, not a file tracking mess.

Start a fresh install of Puppy, click for a web browser and it asks to install
your choice, good except it takes up Save file space, not good...

If browsers, window managers, and other apps. were easy to add and remove,
then trying out "other stuff" would not be such a messy crap shoot.

I`ve tried so many .pet packages that didn`t work I won`t install them now.

Squash files stay compressed, don`t scatter files, and can run in ram easily.

# What elroy seems to be saying in part is "individuality" in O.S. setup.
Everyone likes different stuff, and a good package setup is critical.
And the packages must be built on the target O.S. by competent people.

[`f00]

@sunburnt - amen to that (but bolting on stuff can be a learning experience if things don't go all seriously spangenhacky ). Gosh, clicking on a dotpet used to be such easy magical fun and then I started tearing them apart by habit at some point in time

@elroy
Nice first post here (and welcome!), many happy returns and all that. If you like to test and/or contribute, the Saluki project may appeal (xfce4 is the invested wm/de so.. .. not to mention a terrific lead who's already done some meaningful work advancing things

[cthisbear]

Welcome to Puppy elroy.

Good post.

"""""""""""

" I was impressed with Puppy’s flexibility, compactness, and speed.
But I was put off by the rough edges. "

That would be me then.
My photos never give me enough injustice.

Chris.

[jemimah]

[quote="elroy"]
As a Windows refugee, I have some thoughts on future Puppy development. First off, I’ve been a “troll

[Lobster]

I think you probably mean "lurker"

Indeed.

elroy has entered the kennel

thanks for delurking

I spent about 6 months lurking on the first Puppy forum.
It was very educational.
You will learn a lot more by using Saluki in Beta and reporting back
More than you can imagine.

As for the root thing
- try my security briefing podcast
for the real security issues
http://youtu.be/_uZ_qZgOwg4

[nooby]

elroy, you are in good company liking xfce.
Linus Torvalds from which/whom Linux kernel
has it's name have that as first choice as I get his text.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=73687
Saluki is a woof-build based on Racy with Xfce. The suggested target hardware is computers less than 5 years old. It should run tolerably fast on netbooks and such, but it does need a bit more cpu than the standard ROX/Jwm puppy.

Jemimah as main Developer and many others take part
in testing of Saluki Puppy so you can help out by reporting
what happens when you test that one.

I’ve read many reviews of Puppy Linux on various online
publications, and have come to the conclusion that,

although I enjoy being “root

[Terryphi]

If Puppy ( or any distro. ) were based on a Squash file package system
adding and removing apps. becomes seamless, not a file tracking mess.

I totally agree, sunburnt. I rely mainly on SFS files rather than pets.
The pet system results in all sorts of unexpected consequences.

[nooby]

So could one make a very small Puppy then that is
multi user and that let one chose sfs for almost
everything? Loading on the fly and unloading as
easily and so on.

What would be needed to start from scratch and still be
compatible with the sfs? I wild guess that one would not
be compatible with the pets without being a real puppy
but could one be compatible with all the SFS and that
way be a kind of multi user fork of Puppy?

[Ray MK]

Hi Terryphi

"I totally agree, sunburnt. I rely mainly on SFS files rather than pets."

Me too - SFS is the way to go -
especially now there are a number of good "on-the-fly" loaders/un-loaders available.

I always keep your latest Opera.sfs handy - much appreciated.
ps - like your website too - nice.

And - elroy - excellent 1st post - keep them coming and have fun with Puppy.
As mentioned above - you should look at Saluki - it's outstanding

Many thanks and best regards - Ray

[Terryphi]

Hi Ray: Thanks!

[elroy]

Thank you for the warm reception...much appreciated. And the wonderful ideas. I'm on my way to check out Saluki.

As I stated in my initial post, I prefer being 'root'. I'm the only user on my laptop, and it's much more convenient in that respect to not have to type 'sudu' or 'su' when entering terminal commands. I only offered it up because it seems to be such a common theme, and one of the few complaints, that I observed when reading Puppy reviews.

In all seriousness, I never expected the response that my first post received. You are all very welcoming, and that gives me great comfort. Thank you for your hospitality!

[sunburnt]

Terryphi; The usual consequence is that you end up deleting your Save file.
This smacks of poor system design... As old as Puppy is, it should be fixed.

nooby; What you`re describing is Tiny Core Linux ( 10.5mb ). But not exactly.
It`s Squash files are grouped packages of files that support the app. files.
They`re not complete Squash package apps., SFS files are closer to that.

Originally I tried to get Puppy to work like this, but too much complexity.
It took me 1 week to get a modified Tiny Core working because it`s closer.

The "base" O.S. needs an editor, virtual term., file browser, and setup GUIs.
Any of the stripped Puppies would do, it`s the Squash packages that matter.

I made a static SFS of Skype years ago, it may still work with todays Puppies.
Realistically apps. must be made for each Puppy version to work properly.
With a good build script that should not be hard, except for the big apps.

[Terryphi]

I made a static SFS of Skype years ago, it may still work with todays Puppies.

I have an SFS of Skype static 2.2.0.35. See this thread:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=66922

[RSH]

As I stated in my initial post, I prefer being 'root'. I'm the only user on my laptop, and it's much more convenient in that respect to not have to type 'sudu' or 'su' when entering terminal commands. I only offered it up because it seems to be such a common theme, and one of the few complaints, that I observed when reading Puppy reviews.

I do not know saluki, but i am sure, it is a wonderful puppy.

But maybe take a try at LazY Puppy. It is lucid based, you run as root and it has 10 preconfigured and especially for LazY Puppy modified sfs files with many applications (Audio, Video, Graphics, Office etc.) There is a special Wine sfs that gives you possibility to use Windows PortableApps. There is also a .tar.gz file that contains PortableApps including some applications.

If to run as root is you main thing, and want to use sfs files mainly (sfs is the way!) you should give it a try.