Whats up in Puppy World

[fredx181]

All of it is giving me a stressful feeling....not good, people not good......I must react or no?

Yes, I feel the same, in this thread too much attacking each other, instead of trying to work together (or not because of differences in opinion / view, but no reason for hatred or sarcasm, I'd say)

[wanderer]

hi BalogneChe and everyone

i actually believe we have a consensus
and everything is working out very well

i am very happy i started this thread
because now we are seeing the whole picture

puppy is now recognized as a concept not a piece of code
and it can have an endless number of iterations

woof-ce has provided the distrowatch candidates
bookworm64 (thanks radky) and bookworm32 (thanks peebee)
which are top notch
and are being actively developed
i assume they will either be upgraded when the time comes ( 1 year )
or peebee radky and the woof-ce team
will have another woof-ce candidate ready

they are the face of puppy when a newbee comes in
but then the newbee can see how diverse puppy is
( and by the way has always been with remasters and projects )
and what makes it so attractive to imaginative people

dimkr is actively developing
a fine tuned ( cleaned up ) and very advanced ( wayland etc ) woof-ce project
vanillapup
which gives developers a way to enter woof-ce on the cutting edge

we also have 2 alternatives build systems to woof-ce
for those who feel they cannot or do not want to use woof-ce

debiandog is a masterpiece ( thank you fredx181 )
and an alternative to woof-ce
if someone wishes to have a very very user and developer friendly build system that focuses on debian
( my personal favorite build system )

firstrib is also a masterspiece ( thank you wiak rockedge etc )
that allows developers to build puppy-like distros with almost unlimited variation
we are seeing many great distros produced by it ( thank you sofia )

lighthouse is a woof-build
that is highly polished
and is being actively developed by dry falls

fatdog is a highly developed and polished distro (thank you jamesbond etc )

and RSH seems to be building a woof-ce variant
that with his skills promises to be innovative and awesome

did i leave anyone out

so we have an embarrassment of riches
not a problem

we have an abundance of developers and distros
and 3000 members and 300 visits a day on distrowatch

let us keep doing what we are doing
and congratulate and thank all the people involved

these discussions on this thread may sometimes seem to be going nowhere
but if you pay attention
they are developing new ideas
which we will see come to fruition in the near future

they are also amusing
though i do think we should be nicer to each other
i know we all mean well
but feelings can get hurt unintentionally

so thank you everyone

wanderer

[wiak]

But @dimkr, my rubbish is way better than your rubbish!

Your rubbish is great and you're very consistent at improving this rubbish for years. I also like how you resist the temptation to promote your rubbish over other rubbish.

EDIT: 'Rubbish Discussion Forum' is not a bad name if that's the only thing we can agree on

I found it hard to enjoy the sick joke, which rose to its crecsendo in the above post and was taken up thereafter by some others. However, I considered the comment best ignored because its author was just playing silly word games with the other person doing similar; didn't seem to be an actual opinion being stated in that context.

Personally I find the forum more interesting than it was for even the last few murga forum years. Computer capabilities have changed greatly in the last ten years so that needed featured forum distros to change accordingly to stand any chance in attracting much attention. I believe there are less Linux hobbyists more generally than there were ten and more years ago - it is not just this hobby-related forum that has declined in popularity. Nevertheless, for those still interested in Linux-related project development this forum remains excellent and doesn't at all deserve anyone mocking it.

[wanderer]

oh i did leave something out
thank you wiak for reminding me

thank you rockedge for providing the heart of puppy world

the forum

the most important piece of the puzzle

wanderer

[geo_c]

Not to change the subject too much.

But I'll tell you what's up in my Puppy World.

I'm very consternated at the moment. And here's why.

I feel, that as all these great distros mature, there might be more and more that are using wayland etc, and more and more they'll become Multi-User like a "true linux" operating system should be, and of course having only used a sudo style linux a couple times back in 2007 or whenever it was, not liking it at all, and then stumbling on Puppy Linux, which ran as root, and gave me access to my computer....WELL...

Well, I want to embrace multi-user operation, but apparently I'm too dense, and I can't seem to get anything done productively, at least not so far, or very easily.

So to my understanding wayland doesn't work with the run-as-root model, and I'm sure that's for the best, as the graphics layer is probably very insecure in terms of 'security' and so forth if it's running as root.

So that's what's up for me. I want to learn how to set permissions and do everything a tty-Unix user should know how to do. But I don't even know where to start. I can get a portable browser running from an external location, but no sound, or I change the permissions on my external data cards so I can write to them, and I don't think I should have to do that. But I don't even know.

I am victim of PUPPY-LINUX ABUSE. And now I am a dysfunctional linux user.

and I think there should be a support group for those like me on the forum.

[wiak]

But there was a point I made (not really just an 'opinion') that seemed to have caused the developer-sensitivity issue that caused them to twist what I was saying into an attack on their work. It was to do with advertising on Distrowatch; I continue to believe it is disingenuous to claim Puppy Linux frugal install facilities (and those of the other forum distros) such as save on demand via Pupmode 13 are "unique" inventions of Puppy Linux (the other distros featured here came later so no such uniqueness claims there anyway). Such claims are simply untrue. As I said, several distros have long used the same, almost exactly, or at other times very similar, kernel-software provided techniques (via aufs, overlayfs, or some other union filesystem) - not unique, but old as hat with Sun Microsystems implementing similar many decades ago.

Why claim nonsense and think the outside-this-forum Linux guys won't make a fool of the falsehood? Not a matter for developer sensitivity or is what we discuss to take care of egos? My point was regarding the matter of appropriate way to promote forum featured distros - yes, we employ such layered filesystem techniques (frugal install methods) and do it pretty well, but none of us invented it sorry!!! No claim was made by me that FR/KL was more unique than any other distro here so not good to pretend that either. And not once did my above comment suggest any forum distro or project was rubbish - not once.

dimkr famously stated almost exactly one year ago

And I'm still surprised to you're saying that Puppy should remain alive, but at the same time, also suggest Puppy/woof-CE are inferior to KL/FR or whatever, and also claim that nothing developed here is of value because it's all 'rubbish'.

The question remains therefore - when use of such technologies is not at all unique, what about the distros featured on this forum allow us to characterise them in such a way that we promote their adoption and usage. False claims result in outside ridicule since disingenuous as I said (all such distros - I'm not referring at all only to Puppy Linxu). EDIT: oops.. what is Puppy Linxu? Is that a unique new name for the future version of the Puppy Linux distro?

Another 'fake promotion' technique that is embarrassing is all the talk about Puppy's somehow superior non-conventional (unique?) filesystem when everyone pretty much knows that that characteristic of Puppy actually causes major problems in terms of compatibility with downloaded software.

Or are the unhappy posts towards the end of this thread currently telling us all that everything we say here about how to improve distros and this forum are to avoid pointing out anything negative about What's up in Puppy World. If so, then I'll just say - everything is hunky dory great and fine and no one who develops anything need feel hurt since perfect everything. Puppy World in state of Utopia in that case. We all happy now and no one upset, which is what matters isn't it. Well, since everything settled and fine now for every featured distro then all fine is the answer to the thread about What's Up - nothing is up, all is good.

[geo_c]

I am victim of PUPPY-LINUX ABUSE. And now I am a dysfunctional linux user.
and I think there should be a support group for those like me on the forum.

With all due respect, you're stealing the thunder of my very funny and pertinent post above ^^^^

yes, we employ such techniques and do it pretty well, but none of us invented it sorry!!!

[wiak]

I am victim of PUPPY-LINUX ABUSE. And now I am a dysfunctional linux user.

You shouldn't post that geo_c because there is some truth in it. A simple root only non-multiuser distro is really useful at times and very easy to use for newcomers to linux, which is why it is applauded, but... I once taught Linux to students.. and... Anyway, the some truth of your statement does not mean there are no advantages too.

[dimkr]

I continue to believe it is disingenuous to claim Puppy Linux frugal install facilities (and those of the other forum distros) such as save on demand via Pupmode 13 are "unique" inventions of Puppy Linux

Why do you emphasize uniqueness or the lack of it? Each distro that does this thing does it differently and some implementations are better - faster, more reliable, less RAM intensive, etc'. You can replace Puppy with another distro and start calling it 'Puppy' instead but if some things were better in Puppy you're only going to provide users with an inferior distro. For example, Puppy with aufs can delete files from RAM after saving and achieve lower RAM consumption compared to FR that uses overlay and keeps files in RAM (correct me if it doesn't). Maybe it's the same general idea, but implementations vary a lot.

[Clarity]

... did i leave anyone out ...

Yes, @BarryK build environments.

The other active communities continue to churn out quality distros for evaluations and use.

@dimkr Vanilla v11+ should be better representated by him as it is one of 2 communities actively moving the needle forward with the modern very capable Linux technologies addressing the future. But, its his choice, like @RSH where it is present in the forum for their desired audiences with forum membership contributing their findings from time to time.

In my view, there are many ways to "skin a cat" on this forum. We have EASYs, DOGS, KLs, and WoofCEs for General audience use, and those that are of specialized interest to their creator.

And, I applaud the efforts of all.

What this thread shows is similar in thougths I have over the years. Some members are stuck in the past, while others offers better ways, while others seek future proofing, while others well.

When I was 1st attracted in was in the days of Knoppix when 486/pentium-I resources were meager across the board; namely power, storage, ram, communications, etc. Today, we have BLOWN by those restrictions of the past whether anyone wants to acknowledge the benefits of today or not. We are in a "Brave New World".

Embracing it is a difficult, today, as it was for our Grandparents...namely 'resistant'! This will not change, nor will human advancement remain stagnant.

This forum has membership that I view as "Technologists". Thus, these are the people I expect to continue to show the ways forward without restrictions. "This is what technologist do."

Enjoy all that can be appreciated by the many good things most members do with a focus of supporting each others as we continue movements forward from decade to decade to decade. Puppy and its forum offerings has endured where others have vanished stuck in the past.

It up to the contributers and its supporters to keep the efforts within this community (KENNEL) alive.

[wanderer]

i think we can all agree that puppy world rules and all others drool

puppy does many things better than any other distro i have tried
thats why i use it

i think the description should be more general
something like

a relatively small relatively full featured flexibly deployed easily modified distro

the specific technical implementations will always be related in some way to other distros
for example puppy-like distros use the linux kernel

but we must help geo_c
what about multi user

wanderer

[wanderer]

i didnt want to include barry ks easyos
because i did not know if he would approve

and i did not want to incur the ire of the puppy grandmaster

but of course it is part of puppy world

i will include it in the next review of puppy world

wanderer

[wiak]

Each distro that does this thing does it differently and some implementations are better - faster, more reliable, less RAM intensive, etc'.
...
For example, Puppy with aufs can delete files from RAM after saving and achieve lower RAM consumption compared to FR that uses overlay and keeps files in RAM (correct me if it doesn't). Maybe it's the same general idea, but implementations vary a lot.

As far as I understand it, Puppy is moving towards using overlayfs, but even if it also continues with options to use aufs instead, the advantage regarding not keeping files in RAM during a boot session are provided by aufs and not any special function of the distro itself. Indeed that's what I said already - the likes of aufs or overlayfs code is technology provided by kernel level software for any Linux distro that wants to use its advantages, can, and several do by default. The problem with claiming "uniqueness" on the likes of Distrowatch, for a particular facility is, as I said that the claim is disingenous. Rather, it is appropriate to list the facilities and advantageous functionality provided by a distro such that potential users can choose to use it or not (like models of a car), but there is no need or correctness in claiming uniqueness for any part that is not unique actually. Doing so smacks of insecurity and suggests the distro cannot in fact stand on its own merits.

The other often claimed uniqueness, its filesystem differences, is as I also pointed out, is actually a weakness since it makes the distro incompatible often with the upstream repos it also nowadays relies on.

[jamesbond]

I continue to believe it is disingenuous to claim Puppy Linux frugal install facilities (and those of the other forum distros) such as save on demand via Pupmode 13 are "unique" inventions of Puppy Linux

Why do you emphasize uniqueness or the lack of it? Each distro that does this thing does it differently and some implementations are better - faster, more reliable, less RAM intensive, etc'. You can replace Puppy with another distro and start calling it 'Puppy' instead but if some things were better in Puppy you're only going to provide users with an inferior distro. For example, Puppy with aufs can delete files from RAM after saving and achieve lower RAM consumption compared to FR that uses overlay and keeps files in RAM (correct me if it doesn't). Maybe it's the same general idea, but implementations vary a lot.

@dimkr, you are saying (rightly) that uniqueness comes from specificity (the techniques, behaviours, etc). wiak on the other than tried to disprove it by using the argument of generality (e.g. all Linux distros uses "Linux" as the kernel, so they're the same, etc), which in my opinion doesn't at all refute your statement.

Apart from him, I'm quite sure that the rest of people in this forum are convinced that you're right, that indeed Puppy (and KL, and DD) are unique. The very fact that we're here, in the same "Puppy Linux" forum arguing about this very argument, is evidence enough. We're here because at one point in the past we decided to try Puppy (or KL, or DD) and stuck with it (and led to our continuous engagement in this forum). Now, there are thousands of distros out there. Why did we end up here? Why did we stick with Puppy (or KL or DD) over all others? Obviously, because Puppy/KL/DD has something that others don't. In other words, "unique".

As for PUPMODE 13, I'm also convinced that is indeed Puppy's unique invention. There has been many distros that can run in RAM, or even "persisted" the changes into a file. But Puppy's implementation of PUPMODE 13, in the way that it enables people to choose whether to or not to save; and the ability to continuously "merge down" changes in RAM to the persistence layer so that RAM is not exhausted, is uniquely Puppy. There was no other distros earlier than Puppy which could do this.

Nevertheless, we both know that this isn't going to change wiak's position. In his post that you quoted, he stated that it is his "belief"; and none other knows better than wiak himself, the problem with "belief": it is very hard to change, no matter how much counter-arguments are given.

[jamesbond]

The real problem is that Puppylinux has NO developer and No direction.

We have developers.
But you're right we have no direction.
Because we don't have a leader.
We can talk about the community and the wisdom of the crowd till kingdom come, but the fact is, a body without a head cannot survive, even if it seems alive for a while.

[RSH]

Isn't there many heads?
Like e.g. the Woof-CE team?
At least they decide whats in a Puppy and how it is built.
So, it's a direction on a on a wide path.

Jmtc.

[jamesbond]

Isn't there many heads?
Like e.g. the Woof-CE team?
At least they decide whats in a Puppy and how it is built.
So, it's a direction on a on a wide path.

The Woof-CE team operates as one, on a consensus. It is a single head, not many.

Anyway, Puppy Linux used to be simple.
Whatever Barry called as Puppy Linux, then Puppy Linux it was.

When he stepped down nobody could agree on what Puppy Linux was.
The Woof-CE was floated to address this: whatever came out from Woof-CE, it was Puppy Linux. Not everyone agreed or were happy with this idea, however it was the only unifying idea among the chaos; and people generally followed.

Today there is only peebee maintaining Woof-CE. I only have the greatest respect to him, but I'm not sure if he makes radical changes to Woof-CE, everybody will follow. Even Dima had the same doubt - that's why he chose to fork Woof-CE rather than making in-place updates (you can see his reasoning a few posts above this, here: viewtopic.php?p=123722#p123722. I think this is a very excellent point and should be pinned).

On top of that there are people advising abandonment of Woof-CE, instead of fixing/improving it. That's fine, everybody are free to share their opinions, but then we're back to question we faced in 2013 when Barry stepped down: What is Puppy Linux?
- A set of features?
- A set of code?
- A concept?
- Whatever the community decides to call as Puppy? Who is this "community"? Who represents the community? Votes? What's the voting rules? Who are allowed to vote?
- Or whatever the developer choose to call? If somebody takes Debian ISO and change the background to a puppy, and then he calls his "creation" as Puppy Linux, would it do?
- Or just don't bother anymore with Puppy Linux? We don't have to care about the shared identity anymore. We have Lazy Puppy, we have Lighthouse, we have Quickpup, we have BookWormPup, Jammipup, Voidpup ... it doesn't matter if they're Puppy or not anymore; as they're each their own distro?

Which way do we want to go? Who decides on these things? Why is my opinion about what should be done, is better than yours? And why do people who builds actually Puppy (e.g. you) should listen to me or anyone else, especially if they're mostly talk and don't really build Puppies?

[Clarity]

In my view of the past, EVERY distro has a leader. Every application has a leader who packages. Sometimes, the leader is shared, yet ever a shared leadership is a leader.

The forum has several varied means of creating a distro. Those other than one mentioned, for example WoofCE/T2/etc is used by some 'leader' to create a distro that is used and/or contributed to by the larger community.

I wonder if we should consider, that if a distro is built and shared within this community ... should be considered a PUPPY? Or should we find some reasonable way to designate those things that constitute a PUP? Or if it has some 'standard' or agreed to set of packages which mimics Barry's (or 01Micko's) desktop deliverables, then that is a PUP?

Do we need a leader to determine what a PUP is defined as? Further when a leader leaves how should the leash be handed off to. As it stands from the varied views in this thread, the Puppy is running around with no one able to grab the leash.

Yes, I too, can see the difficulty here. And, it is hoped we can adopt somethings that is reasonable if a specific determination is required.

Is it best to allow it to continue as it is with several of the forum distros appealing to Distrowatch for announcement and incorporation into the larger Linux world just as EASYOS and FATDOG and EXTIXpups has done?

Or should each family of forum distro determine among the family members which from the family should be getting notice via Distrowatch? We cant continue to bat this beach ball around as we have...or can we?

[RSH]

@jamesbond

but then we're back to question we faced in 2013 when Barry stepped down: What is Puppy Linux?

I was never faced to such question.
I answered this question: Puppy Linux.
To me it's not defined by the way how it is created.

- A set of features?
- A set of code?
- A concept?
- Whatever the community decides to call as Puppy? Who is this "community"? Who represents the community? Votes? What's the voting rules? Who are allowed to vote?
- Or whatever the developer choose to call? If somebody takes Debian ISO and change the background to a puppy, and then he calls his "creation" as Puppy Linux, would it do?
- Or just don't bother anymore with Puppy Linux? We don't have to care about the shared identity anymore. We have Lazy Puppy, we have Lighthouse, we have Quickpup, we have BookWormPup, Jammipup, Voidpup ... it doesn't matter if they're Puppy or not anymore; as they're each their own distro?

Which way do we want to go? Who decides on these things? Why is my opinion about what should be done, is better than yours? And why do people who builds actually Puppy (e.g. you) should listen to me or anyone else, especially if they're mostly talk and don't really build Puppies?

Wow, that's way too many questions.
Too many questions can destroy everything by casting doubt.

Is there really a need to have an answer to all these questions?
I don't think so. I would handle it the way, I do it in real life.

Oh, that's nice. Let me take it and see where it will take me.
E.g.: I never had the plan to play the drums or even to compose music. Up to my 18th birthday I was in believe that I never could learn an instrument. Some people entered my life who already played guitar, bass and keyboard. But they didn't have a drummer. They persuaded me to try to play drums. I took it and I never regretted to take it. Where it took me was awesome and made me happy most of my lifetime.

Have a look at the drumming on my YouTube channel.

What would happen if I had started and continued again and again with questions.

Do I trust myself to do this?
Do I want to always transport so many heavy things?
How do I do this without a driver's license?
Am I good enough?
Can I develop further?
Do I have enough time for this?
What does my wife say about this?

That wouldn't have helped me!

And so it was in Puppy Linux.

Ok, I'm out now. At work.

[williwaw]

So to my understanding wayland doesn't work with the run-as-root model,

Is this in fact true?

run as root, (good, bad or otherwise) is a sort of signature of puppy
along with pupmode 13 IMO

[dimkr]

the advantage regarding not keeping files in RAM during a boot session are provided by aufs and not any special function of the distro itself.

You're wrong, this is implemented in snapmergepuppy. aufs allows this "merge down" operation, but it's not a feature of aufs itself. It's something Barry (or somebody else?) came up with and implemented. This has served Puppy well, for years.

But this is just an example, there are many Puppy features that can be found on other distros as well, and some implementations of the same idea have objective advantages.

You describe build systems as interchangable and meaningless because you don't look at the fine details, only compare them from a bird eye's view.

@jamesbond

but then we're back to question we faced in 2013 when Barry stepped down: What is Puppy Linux?

I was never faced to such question.
I answered this question: Puppy Linux.
To me it's not defined by the way how it is created.

It's OK not to define it. If Puppy Linux lives on as a family of distros that describe themselves as derivatives of Puppy Linux but Puppy Linux itself has no releases or even developers, eventually people will find some vague idea of what Puppy is through family resemblance and choose the derivative they like best. It's not THAT important to define Puppy or have a well-defined project structure.

[wiak]

the advantage regarding not keeping files in RAM during a boot session are provided by aufs and not any special function of the distro itself.

You're wrong, this is implemented in snapmergepuppy. aufs allows this "merge down" operation, but it's not a feature of aufs itself. It's something Barry (or somebody else?) came up with and implemented. This has served Puppy well, for years.

But this is just an example, there are many Puppy features that can be found on other distros as well, and some implementations of the same idea have objective advantages.

You describe build systems as interchangable and meaningless because you don't look at the fine details, only compare them from a bird eye's view.

What people do in scripts such as snapmergepuppy is utilise the mechanisms underneath system software provide. The great 'innovation' copy or rsync back from RAM to persistence media. Since the copied back changes are see by aufs layering can obviously delete what was in RAM, but overlayfs doesn't provide that facility/ability - thats all. Scripts like snapmergepuppy are simply user-script front ends, in this case to an aufs provided mechanism; I am not 'wrong' per you curt dismissal, but big deal not either way.

It seems you and some other, clearly bearing a grudge, jealous insecure developers of some projects here think this forum is for naming individuals, trying to convince others of how wrong they are and correct you are. Just get on with your own pursuits please since it is tiring this constant attacks against the 'opinions' of myself, whether it is just one of you who is trying to demean me or similar inclined individuals are joining in. I'm always 'wrong' it seems, at least according to several of your posts even in this thread, (wrong wrong wrong you keep saying next to my name oh great all-knowledgeable one) but whatever. Get on with your only always 'right' stuff - I don't care. EDIT: if I am right or wrong in your desperate sounding troll-oriented opinion.

[dimkr]

What people do in scripts such as snapmergepuppy is utilise the mechanisms underneath system software provide.

So what? They're still of value. A car uses an engine and a steering wheel, this doesn't make the car 'rubbish' or a useless 'frontend'. People can't travel without a complete car, and some cares have objective advantages over others even if they're all just dull-looking cars.

jealous insecure developers of some projects

I only write useless 'frontends' because everything I write uses tools, libraries, APIs and kernels written by others, and you still call me 'developer'. Thank you.

I don't care.

If you don't care, I don't understand why you invest so much in convincing us that Puppy and woof-CE are dead and inferior to the 'frontends' you build yourself.

[wiak]

Who ever said a car is rubbish or any distro project here is rubbish? You are twisted and twisting mate.

[wiak]

Now stop trolling me along with your 'supporters' and go away and play with yourself(s).

[jamesbond]

@RSH, thank you for sharing the link for your channel. It's quite interesting I generally agree with your point, sometimes too many questions prevents real action to take place (there is even a name for it, it's called analysis paralysis).

For an individual, s/he can take Woof-CE (or any other build systems here) and go ahead and play and tinker, and hopefully producing something at the end: other people's comments and opinions be damned. As long as s/he enjoys the process, then why not.

But the issue at the centre here is not the personal one. It is the social one. You may have not this thread fully, but the thing is, everybody seems to have a different idea of what Puppy is. What you call as a Puppy is not necessarily recognised as Puppy by others, and vice versa. We need some sort of agreements so we can so and so distro is a Puppy, and such and such is not. Otherwise, it will "that distro is Puppy according to you but not according to me".

The questions I listed above are the questions asked in order to find this elusive agreement, because, eleven years later after Barry stepped down, we haven't been able to agree on anything. Woof-CE was an attempt at this agreement too, and as I said earlier, it worked - for a while, despite constant criticism of it; but now that we're dropping the only thing that we had ever agreed on, we're now back to chaos.

Or perhaps, the future that @dimkr outlined below.

It's OK not to define it. If Puppy Linux lives on as a family of distros that describe themselves as derivatives of Puppy Linux but Puppy Linux itself has no releases or even developers, eventually people will find some vague idea of what Puppy is through family resemblance and choose the derivative they like best. It's not THAT important to define Puppy or have a well-defined project structure.

Without a leader, this is where exactly where it is going. None of the derivative can call themselves Puppy anymore. The most they can claim is their heritage. We can no longer talk about Puppy, only the actual distros themselves. Perhaps this is not a bad thing. At least we can return the focus on improving the actual distros rather than forever debating what Puppy Linux is. (Though we still have to debate on the candidate we want to put on distrowatch year by year ).

[wanderer]

hi jamesbond and everyone

the distrowatch candidate is the solution to this problem

many people have expressed concern
that someone who uses puppy expects

1. a certain behavior ( pupmodes etc )
2. and a certain group of applications

in addition distrowatch and everyone else
reviews only our distrowatch candidate
not the myriad of projects on our forum

to the world
the distrowatch candidate
is puppy

and we have to come up with one every year

thats really the only distro
everyone needs to agree is puppy

thats our stable branch
everything else on the forum can be our testing branch

right now the distrowatch candidates are made with woof-ce
and i think everyone will agree that radky and peebee
have done a magnificent job
i am hoping they will continue their work

the date on the distrowatch submission is april
so we have about 10 months
before we will need to make a decision

will we upgrade bookwormpup
or choose another candidate

we will do it as we did it before
by discussing it
and by voting
on the forum

we should probably start discussing it now
so it does not creep up on us

wanderer

[geo_c]

So to my understanding wayland doesn't work with the run-as-root model,

Is this in fact true? run as root, (good, bad or otherwise) is a sort of signature of puppy along with pupmode 13 IMO

According to this answer, the problem running Wayland from different users, or root, is not in Wayland itself but has to do with XDG_RUNTIME_DIR:

The Wayland documentation mentions WAYLAND_DISPLAY, but I do not find anything about XDG_RUNTIME_DIR. Though, all wayland compositors including the reference implementation weston depend on XDG_RUNTIME_DIR.

If WAYLAND_DISPLAY would be at another location, it would not be a problem to run applications from arbitrary users on the same wayland display. But XDG_RUNTIME_DIR ist specified to be restricted on the logged-in user and should contain user related sockets:

$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR defines the base directory relative to which user-specific non-essential runtime files and other file objects (such as sockets, named pipes, ...) should be stored. The directory MUST be owned by the user, and he MUST be the only one having read and write access to it. Its Unix access mode MUST be 0700.

The issues with running another user or root on wayland are rather related to the XDG_RUNTIME_DIR specification than to wayland itself. If you specify a custom XDG_RUNTIME_DIR in /tmp with arbitrary access (thus breaking its specification), all users can use the wayland display.

There is some hope for the future not to need XDG_RUNTIME_DIR, but it depends on the implementation: Wayland docu chap.4:

Beginning in Wayland 1.15, implementations can optionally support server socket endpoints located at arbitrary locations in the filesystem by setting WAYLAND_DISPLAY to the absolute path at which the server endpoint listens.

And perhaps Kennel developers of all breeds are considering doing the puppy thing and finding an innovative workaround to still run everyhting as root, or perhaps not, and perhaps doing so is a bad idea all around.

And I think the change to not running as root, and instead running purely as USER, would be a significant change to all Distros being developed here.

I'm sure the Xorg distros will be around for awhile, but is it better for a victim of PUPPY-LINUX-RUN-AS-ROOT abuse such as myself to seek therapy and healing for my dysfunctional LInux behavior, or instead fearfully cling to my abuse-cycle coping mechanism of running as root forever?

[dimkr]

So to my understanding wayland doesn't work with the run-as-root model,

Is this in fact true?

Nope.

Wayland is just a protocol. It has various implementations ("compositors"), some of them try to drop privileges or refuse to run as root: this was more common in the past, I haven't seen this for some time. Other than this problem, there's nothing that prevents a Wayland compositor or applications that talk to the compositor from running as root (minus applications like VLC, which refuse to run as root).

(If you want evidence: my dpup development builds are Wayland native. You're logged in as root, the Wayland compositor runs as root, some applications run as spot, and Xwayland runs as spot and it's sandboxed to improve security.)

[mikewalsh]

@geo_c :-

Perhaps Kennel developers of all breeds are considering doing the puppy thing and finding an innovative workaround to still run everyhting as root, or perhaps not, and perhaps doing so is a bad idea all around.

And I think the change to not running as root, and instead running purely as USER, would be a significant change to all Distros being developed here.

I'm sure the Xorg distros will be around for awhile, but is it better for a victim of PUPPY-LINUX-RUN-AS-ROOT abuse such as myself to seek therapy and healing for my dysfunctional LInux behavior, or instead fearfully cling to my abuse-cycle coping mechanism of running as root forever?

^^^ Lololol!!!

Eeh, I love the way ya put that......

Mike.