Whats up in Puppy World

[wanderer]

hi everyone

here is a question

in 10 months when distrowatch come due

should we upgrade bookwormpup ?

or consider another candidate ?

wanderer

[dimkr]

should we upgrade bookwormpup ?

Upgrade to what? Debian 13 is far from ready, and manually upgrading Debian 12 packages to newer versions will make them incompatible with each other.

[wanderer]

here is my vote
for the next distrowatch candidate in 10 months

i think we should slowly improve bookwormpup
until its pretty much perfect
fix bugs and add stuff etc

its ready now
we all agree its a puppy
we all like debian ( i do )

we can then change the background and say its a bug fix release

i like the idea of slowly polishing things

wanderer

[dimkr]

i think we should slowly improve bookwormpup
until its pretty much perfect
fix bugs and add stuff etc

OK, so who volunteers to make a list of requested features and bug fixes? And who volunteers to do the work?

[stevie pup]

Although I’ve been following this thread ever since it started I must admit that a lot it has become far too technical for me, and has gone straight over my head. So if I may I would like to add a few words purely from a user’s perspective.

If something on the forum catches my interest all I want it to do is work. I’m neither bothered nor interested in whether it’s “official” or not, how it was constructed, what it’s under lying code is, or any of that stuff. So if there’s something I want to try I just want to download the iso and put it on a USB stick, usually with either Rufus or Ventoy. Simple eh?

I’ve been using Puppies (and derivatives) for just over 3 years, so I’m probably still a new starter compared to some on the forum. In that time I’ve tried out quite a few different Pups, etc, and the results have been from one extreme to the other. Some have been almost perfect straight out of the box, some have needed a bit of tweaking, a few have been damn troublesome, and one or two wouldn’t even boot in the first place. Anything in the latter two categories I just delete and forget about.

As for those that work ok, can I do all the basics with them, such as type a document, listen to music, watch a video, browse the net etc? Of course I can! Now can I use my preferred software to do all these things? Not always, unfortunately.

With regard to the “Puppy” name, I certainly wouldn’t change it or drop it. I suppose I think of Puppy as a brand, in the same way that, for example, Sony is a brand. Look back at all the countless millions of products they’ve churned out over the years, some of which has been brilliant but some has been complete rubbish. Nobody’s perfect, nobody gets it right all the time.

I’m not going to say anything about which way Puppy should go in the future either, as I’m well aware that would only reflect my personal taste and not be of particular benefit to Puppy as a whole.

[fredx181]

I’m not going to say anything about which way Puppy should go in the future either, as I’m well aware that would only reflect my personal taste and not be of particular benefit to Puppy as a whole.

Reflecting personal taste can be very important IMO, it can make developers exploring new ideas, different views.

[rcrsn51]

Unfortunately, much of what happens in the forum these days could be characterised as "Project Management by OCD".

[williwaw]

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

How much of this long meandering discussion about puppy is on account of how Distrowatch like to do things?

Upage I suggested having Distrowatch point to pupplinux.com, which could be a generic page with anything rock/the forum/those that want to argue/maybe a poll wants to feature. Top billing would be whatever is decided as being called Puppy. other projects could be subfeatured. The top billing would link to https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/ if it met the requirements of woof-ce

[wanderer]

hi dimkr

we the users can ask for things

and radky and peebee and their teams

can do all the work

hasnt that always been what has happened

thats where bookworm came from in the first place

wanderer

[wanderer]

i like what williwaw is suggesting

it would take a lot of the hassel out of dealing with distrowatch

and address the issue of the diversity of puppy

wanderer

[radky]

we the users can ask for things

and radky and peebee and their teams

can do all the work

@wanderer

Since the inception of BW64 last year, each new point release has addressed myriad updates which mirror those of upstream Debian, and there have been countless bug fixes and refinements which address the concerns and requests of forum members.

For confirmation, please see the following link which provides the changelog for each release -- with attribution to the forum members who contributed to each fix or update:

viewtopic.php?p=89021#p89021

Peebee has also included most of these updates and fixes in BW32.

If I understand correctly, members of the Puppy community generally agree BookwormPup64 and BookwormPup32 are reasonable candidates to represent Puppy Linux on Distrowatch or pupplinux.com (at least for now) and potentially this will introduce new users to Puppy and the many Distro options available on the forum. However, at this time it seems a bit premature to decide the next submission to Distrowatch -- likely a full year from now. In the interim we will see new potential candidates and there will be plenty of time to reach general agreement going forward.

[pp4mnklinux]

Dear all
after 15 pages I would like to say that we went from a situation in the old forum that non-puppy distributions were met with "skepticism" to a new forum that Puppylinux (the distribution) per se, is "questionable".
In the mean time puppy's popularity and more important releases is precipitating and a multitude of puppy-aspirred distribution are developed but hardly known outside the few hundred regulars of this forum.
I wonder who is really satisfied with the current status other than wiak that through the years succeeded to push everyone that he did not agree with, outside this forum and puppylinux.
And now that the war is won we are looking for a Puppylinux release to increase traffic in this forum so all the 'rubbish' here get some more exposure
However, wiak is NOT the problem. He certainly has a strong opinion and he has succeeded to dominate the place and become the second in line in this forum, but everyone is entitled to an opinion and has the right to fight for it.
The real problem is that Puppylinux has NO developer and No direction.
dimkr, the last prolific puppy developer, although he has some clear direction, never declared his vaniillas as puppylinux distributions to be announced outside this forum.
Before him another prolific developer, wdlkmpx/aaaaa, was bashed sufficiently and never released anything after half a million lines of code changed in woof-CE.
01micko the previous prolific developer was the last one to release something and gone for some time now from everything puppy/woof-CE and mavrothal that initiated this terrible idea of collaborative woof to continue Barry Kauler's work, is long gone from puppy and woof-ce after similar treatment
So there is a vacuum that many forum members aspire to fill but as clearly stated in the previous 15 pages with no clear idea/direction
However, linux users are usually knowledgable persons and can see half baked goods from a mile away and they are not going to approach this place for any reason other than observe the quarrel of a distribution demise.
Let's not forget that distrowatch still quotes S15pup as the lates release no matter how the top handful of forum dogs proceed with their psychotherapy.
So you may stop arguing and put something out beyond the mud walls of this forum, for the linux crowd to see, judge and appreciate.
Otherwise officially or not 'Rubbish Discussion Forum' will be the name of this forum if rockedge is still willing to pay for it

UPDATED.-

18 PAGES
521 POSTS

My personal oppinion.

PuPPy Linux is Barry Kauler so now I am "learning to use" EasyOs (thanks to all the users that are teaching me)

[RSH]

Woof-CE issues...
viewtopic.php?p=123914#p123914

[Geek3579]

Although I’ve been following this thread ever since it started I must admit that a lot it has become far too technical for me, and has gone straight over my head. So if I may I would like to add a few words purely from a user’s perspective.

If something on the forum catches my interest all I want it to do is work. I’m neither bothered nor interested in whether it’s “official” or not, how it was constructed, what it’s under lying code is, or any of that stuff. So if there’s something I want to try I just want to download the iso and put it on a USB stick, usually with either Rufus or Ventoy. Simple eh?

I’ve been using Puppies (and derivatives) for just over 3 years, so I’m probably still a new starter compared to some on the forum. In that time I’ve tried out quite a few different Pups, etc, and the results have been from one extreme to the other. Some have been almost perfect straight out of the box, some have needed a bit of tweaking, a few have been damn troublesome, and one or two wouldn’t even boot in the first place. Anything in the latter two categories I just delete and forget about.

As for those that work ok, can I do all the basics with them, such as type a document, listen to music, watch a video, browse the net etc? Of course I can! Now can I use my preferred software to do all these things? Not always, unfortunately.

With regard to the “Puppy” name, I certainly wouldn’t change it or drop it. I suppose I think of Puppy as a brand, in the same way that, for example, Sony is a brand. Look back at all the countless millions of products they’ve churned out over the years, some of which has been brilliant but some has been complete rubbish. Nobody’s perfect, nobody gets it right all the time.

I’m not going to say anything about which way Puppy should go in the future either, as I’m well aware that would only reflect my personal taste and not be of particular benefit to Puppy as a whole.

I'm of the same mind and similar experience as @stevie pup

Been using Puppy Linux as a daily driver for at least 6 years and have used BookwormPup64.3 with LXDE since December 23 in one desktop and two different laptops. I havent bothered to update to the latest version as V3 just works, and is the most trouble-free puppy I have used to date (with LXDE on board). Having a Debian base and apt has been a big part of this reliability. Even my non-tech wife can use it easily. By all means promote it as soon as possible.

[wiak]

Seems to me a lot of people here are being short sighted.

Perhaps current BookworkPup is Wayland based? From Bookworm threads it seems to be Xorg, not Wayland?

If indeed BookwormPup continues to use Xorg this year and per your planned Distrowatch presence next year, then you are holding Puppy behind the times

or is the overall feeling that BookwormPup will be upgraded to be a Wayland distro prior to next Distrowatch announcement? If not, then imagine this: Vanilla Dpup 11.x becomes stable and published on Distrowatch... I cannot imagine BookwormPup (Xorg based) would get anything like as many new downloads as Vanilla Dpup would in that circumstance; isn't Wayland what everyone is finally (mainly) moving towards?... Now what would that mean for the future of your Puppy Linux distro?

Or am I wrong wrong wrong?

I really like XFCE, but even I accept that I will move from using it if its developers fail to make a version of it that fully works with Wayland. Hence LXDE a dead end for me, and JWM/Rox definitely so. I have heard that LXQt is going (already?) to fully support Wayland, but I make no such claim to avoid four "wrongs".

[dimkr]

woof-CE has a Debian 13 build configuration that produces a 'pure Wayland' Puppy with labwc and sfwbar, so I'm not worried about the death of X.Org also signaling the end of Puppy. Applications like spacefm and mtpaint are patched to work under Wayland, and Xwayland works well (so even old GTK+ 2 applications work well). Anyone who picks it up where I left it and continues development until the Debian 13 release should be able to produce a worthy successor to BookwormPup that's X.Org-free and aufs-free.

However,
1. Many old computers that don't support OpenGL ES 2.0 won't be able to run a Wayland compositor; two of mine show crazy graphical glitches but X.Org works perfectly on the same distro
2. I believe most 32-bit only computers are just too old to have a supported GPU (but as far as I see, many if not most users of 32-bit Puppy actually have 64-bit capable hardware)
3. I made many Wayland-related improvements in my woof-CE fork (plus many optimizations) like automatic kanshi profile generation - I haven't upstreamed these changes and I don't see how they can fit in 'official' Puppy
4. Without JWM and ROX-Filer, some people would prefer to stay with BookwormPup and that's understandable - labwc is much closer to openbox and spacefm is configured to behave a bit more like ROX-Filer (single click, etc') but it's still very different

[wanderer]

hi all

as dimkr and others seem to be pointing out
many older computers may not work with the newer technologies

it might be a good idea for us to pick a few older distros
that we could recommend if someone came to the forum
looking for a distro that would work on their older hardware

upup32 ( thank you peebee ) seems to work flawlessly on just about anything

wanderer

[Chelsea80]

@wanderer

as dimkr and others seem to be pointing out
many older computers may not work with the newer technologies

it might be a good idea for us to pick a few older distros
that we could recommend if someone came to the forum
looking for a distro that would work on their older hardware

upup32 ( thank you peebee ) seems to work flawlessly on just about anything

I agree.

Albeit in the minority there are still 32 bit users out there.

Perhaps they can not afford to upgrade and are stuck, or they can not justify the extra cost because what they have got does what they want from it.

For whatever reason, yes, I think a 32 bit Puppy should be considered for inclusion.

Now which 32 bit Puppy is up for discussion.

You kicked off with upup32, I concur. That is only from a personal use perspective and not a technical insight.

So let’s see what other 32 bit Puppy the community thinks would be appropriate.

[wiak]

So seems all is well for Puppy Linux distro future for those who have older computers that don't work with Wayland for some reason or another, but stick with BookwormPup or earlier.

And all will be well for Puppy Linux distro future with those using newer computers that do work with Wayland (the majority I would think, or will be soon...) as long as somebody picks up the woof-CE Debian 13 configuration branch and works on that sufficiently in the future.

Something in that to think about I'd say.

[wanderer]

hi wiak rockedge and firstrib people

i think we should have a firstrib example distro to recommend
to people interested in that system

fredx181 has suggested airedale the one based on void

and i think thats a good idea since void has such an advanced package manager

however i couldnt get it to boot
kernel panic

i think an example should be made to boot with syslinux instead of grub
because some people dont like grub ( or a vm )

the example we recommend should be an iso that anyone can just put on a usb and boot

in addition the build system should run completly to iso
so someone starting out can just run it successfully
this way they dont get frustrated and possibly give up

wanderer

[wiak]

I wouldn't suggest klv-airedale for that purpose if only because it has pretty slow boot time. But also maybe something more futuristic is a good KL distro to particularly promote - a Wayland KL seems most appropriate to me.

Making sure a KL distro will boot usually comes down to kernel/modules/firmware provided... always difficult to satisfy most users' computers without inflated amounts of firmware. I'd suggest using the kernel provided in whatever is being promoted as main Puppy distro. That way it is more likely both the KL and the Puppy would boot successfully on same range of computers.

But I don't agree that something other than grub2 needs to be used or that a build system should include making an iso. These are extras/separate functions that not everyone needs at all and requires the build system to have iso-making software pre-installed (which isn't necessary at all otherwise) and hence limits what would be suitable host build systems. Easy enough to download iso making software if someone wants that and having a small script to them create an iso when so wanted. Personally I hardly ever bother with putting iso-making software on my computer and only make isos on these rare occasions when I publish an iso for the benefit of Clarity!

Main thing is that building an iso just needs a secondary script to be run or that code embedded in earlier script(s), and the needed iso software installed on the build host. Pain of it all is that iso making needs to cope with EFI and non-EFI booting, which is all a bit of a complex extra so best kept as another build stage for those that want to do it... A traditional frugal install with an already existing grub-type menu set up doesn't need iso making at all. Yes DebianDog and Puppy do provide iso making in the build - but both assume building on DD host for DD, or new enough Puppy host for Puppy, with assumption these are provided with all the iso/EFI etc stuff required during the build; an annoying assumption to my brain. But yes it could be done once other priorities/todos finally worked through.

[Clarity]

...it might be a good idea for us to pick a few older distros
that we could recommend if someone came to the forum
looking for a distro that would work on their older hardware...

Good Idea. But, what constitutes an older PC? This, I see, is a problem, where I am not sure how to determines this.

Most all current releases of forum distro, today (at least those thru the end of March, this year) seemingly address most all 64bit PCs. 32bit OSes on a 64bit PC offer no 'real' advantages. This does NOT mean that some members will want to just continue use of 32 for whatever reasons they choose, but it really comes down to user preferences versus any perceived advantage that remaining in the 32bit world offers.

... pointing out
many older computers may not work with the newer technologies ...

...Albeit in the minority there are still 32 bit users out there. ...

It is important to KNOW that no 32bit x86 technology PCs have been produced by world's majority manufacturers since 2006 or almost 30 years ago! So, for the past 30 years, manufacturers have given the world 64bit PCs

Almost, if not ALL users which come here have 64bit PCs.

For the past 40 years approx 1000 versions of distros from UNIX to MS to MACs to Linix to DOS to OS2 and some non-mentions have been produced. ALL distros for 32bit based in the old PLDF continue to work just as the other 1000 on 25-30 year-old OLD 32bit PCs.

This community has a limited resource: Developers with time. If you plan, design, implement, develop, debug, schedule multiple releases and continue to support toward a final release...takes someone or multiples time.

IF 64bit is what is in the hands of all who come here, WHY is there any need to have developers continue to support something which already exist? Why not support for what users have with the limited development resources the community has supporting what every user coming here has in their hands. ???

If the community had the resources who want to spend their time, I can understand the individual's personal desire for such.

BUT the overall DEMAND in the Linux world is 64bit.

Old forum contains all that is needed for 32bit. This NEW efforts and OUR discussions should NOT have any focus for 32bit unless these is either a stated benefit or an overwhelming need. Today, that need is not present. Further, anyone who ask, should be directed to what already exist in the old PLDF forum or the few offered today.

We are not helping ourselves as we try to focus on the future of distros in the PLDF which, like most major distros in the world who have resources have abandoned any future considerations for any 32bit need. They, like BarryK, have made the same observations I share here. No need to expend resources on old stuff, when its apparent everyone has 64bit.

Any users with a 64bit PC that comes to Puppyland, if s/he does not see a 32bit PC will, of course, use the wonderful 64bit alternatives the community offers, especially for the past 15 or so years of maturity.

Forum distros do much to provide backward capability on today's 64bit distros. Why would/should we continue to expend developer time and effort targeting a small number of users who may still have a 486 or Pentium-1 whose OS needs already exist?

How does it benefit this overall Puppy community, which is already behind and limited in resources, in its continuing effort to march into the future?

If any of you were running a development company, today, why would you do this? How is there a benefit when we know just about everyone in the world has a 64bit PC/ especially knowing this?

This concept is a "head-scratcher".

[wanderer]

hi clarity

im not saying put any development effort into distros for older machines

im just saying pick a few already made that work well to recommend

however i do appreciate that peebee is putting all this work into 32 systems
like i said his upup32 is a gem

wanderer

[dimkr]

AFAIK no currently available 32 bit Puppy is fully mitigated against the 2038 bug and that's a good reason to make at least one last release, and it will take a lot of work to rebuild absolutely everything.

[Clarity]

Just one more comment.
There are full feature 32bit distros around that function, perfectly well. Some have 64bit companions. When the 32bit version is no longer developed and a users liked its contents and behavior, I see no reason why that user would hesitate to jump to the 64bit version and continue happily along as the 64bit companion which ALSO contains the same contents and behavior.

That just the human side of us!

[wanderer]

as i said i do appreciate that peebee is making his 32 bit masterpieces

32 bit seems to work better on my hardware

but i dont want to try force anyone to do what they dont want to do

that is a question for everyone

does puppy want to support both 32 and 64 bit

luckily peebee is willing to do the work

so for the foreseeable future i will run his 32 bit systems

wanderer

[greengeek]

BUT the overall DEMAND in the Linux world is 64bit.

Old forum contains all that is needed for 32bit.

I think it is wonderful what is still being done with 32 bit focus. The compatibility sfs are a great example of puppy ingenuity.

And some printer drivers are 32bits. There is still plenty of 32bit development going on.

I am still developing Dpup Stretch 32 for my own needs and greatly appreciate peoples work on 32bit portables etc.

[wiak]

Considering how rare 32bit machines now are, it seems a complete waste of time releasing any more distros for them here; since upstream Void Linux still supports 32bit builds (though I wonder for how much longer) seems sensible just to go with that since rolling release model, and we already have that in form of KLV (easy to rebuild 32bit versions) and VoidPup32. Better for the rest here is the few remaining devs put effort into future 64bit builds than play about in the past, but depends on their own interests in practice.

Naturally, if 32bit is what you like as a hobby you are going to push for activity in that area, but no doubt minority and not enough available dev time around here overall so overall future development could do with priority.

[greengeek]

Naturally, if 32bit is what you like as a hobby you are going to push for activity in that area, but no doubt minority and not enough available dev time around here overall so overall future development could do with priority.

I was just disagreeing with the idea that the old forum is all that is needed for 32bit. That is not correct. Lots of useful 32bit info in the rockedge forum.

[williwaw]

i like what williwaw is suggesting

it would take a lot of the hassel out of dealing with distrowatch

and address the issue of the diversity of puppy

wanderer

not only would it streamline working with Distrowatch, it might make the "decision" about what is puppy easier.

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.

with this I agree.

It seems that whenever the Distrowatch maintence issue comes up, there is an expediency to get something done in a timely fashion. And rightly so. Thanks for stepping in, wanderer.

The "deciding the future of puppy" discussion often follows. The future of puppy does not have the same expediency requirements tho. The future of puppy IMO is an evoloutionary process, not a "decision" made ahead of time.

By subfeaturing a project in development on a landing page, perhaps there will be more interest and comments about the possible future "official" puppy from people coming from the Distrowatch direction. Many who come directly to the forum are often bewildered by the variety of offerings both new and old,
My personal opinion is somewhat mixed about the usefulness of Distrowatch, but perhaps that is best taken up in the other thread.