DistroWatch needs a newer Puppy version listed for Puppy Linux!!!!!

[Clarity]

Let's not overlook @dimkr's suggestion as that 'does' bring that distro build with Wayland into 2024 as it is a consistent direction of all major Linux distributions putting "Puppy Linux" right there in the arena that users, new and old to the community seek, They would gravitate to: modern subsystems and modern packages for 64bit PCs new and old with the continuation of a small package OS with exceptional performance.

He has already produced his Vanilla versions 10+11 that are operational with 2024 technology aims. Such so that they are demonstrations of successful builds, and stable operations in his offering to the community.

I also think that WoofCE should start a move to GTK4/QT6 while dropping some of the old technologies as there is not enough development personnel to continue to support the old. Move on and with a stable deliverable, members will support and contribute.

I have said this before and I think it may still be relevant: "Our older distros in this forum CONTINUE to behave adequately without issues of the hardware they are running on." With Package management in those distros, they are kept or available for program updates. Thus as this thread is addressing a suitable DW entry, which I am in agreement, it also needs to look forward to the 1 year delivery that is talked about.

Great contributions from everyone, on the thread thus far.

[wiak]

The original Puppy was not 'old technology' oriented, and neither should any distro marketed here focus on old technology except as an aside/option.

[dimkr]

distro build with Wayland into 2024

I also think that WoofCE should start a move to GTK4/QT6 while dropping some of the old technologies

Software is not a thing that happens, it's a thing people make. Wayland, GTK+ 4 and Qt 6 are not just ready-made "things" one can "add" to a list of packages while dropping GTK+ 3 and Qt 5.

JWM is a X.Org window manager (it can't be ported to Wayland, only re-implemented), gtkdialog doesn't support GTK+ 4 (only GTK+ 3, and many gtkdialog-based things still assume GTK+ 2) and porting to to GTK+ 4 will require extensive changes (some removed or replaced widgets) that will affect its users, and ROX-Filer is stuck with GTK+ 2 (which doesn't support Wayland). Somebody will need to port all these things to modern technologies or even rewrite them (in the case of JWM) before Puppy can drop old libraries.

The original Puppy was not 'old technology' oriented, and neither should any distro marketed here focus on old technology except as an aside/option.

Moreover, the BookwormPup64 kernel is nearly identical to the Debian kernel. Today's Puppy is as old-hardware-friendly as Debian, not more. Puppy's unique value comes from its layered structure (and the various persistency modes), the copy-to-RAM thing and preinstalled applications.

[jamesbond]

Puppy's unique value comes from its layered structure (and the various persistency modes), the copy-to-RAM thing and preinstalled applications.

This I couldn't say it better.

Common folks don't use operating systems. They use __applications__ that runs on top of the operating system, e.g. web browsing, word processing, spreadsheet, media players, audio editing, games, music / video authoring, livestreaming, servers, etc.

Why not aim to make Puppy a platform that can run as many useful applications as possible, with as little fuss as possible? In other word, the most compatible platform to run useful applications? All other stuff (technology, etc) should be subservient to this purpose. Along with portability, user-friendliness, instant recovery if one makes a mistake, that would make Puppy stand out.

[wanderer]

hi all

as a user

i agree with jamesbond

i use puppy because

1. it runs firefox and the other applications
2. its small in size (no bloatware - fast download - runs fast)
3. its versatile (i run upup32 completely from a usb no hardrive - thanks peebee)

im not concerned about the underlying technical aspects

wanderer

[wanderer]

hi all

just a technical note for the future

distrowatch only requires

1. a screenshot
2. and a link to the announcement of the candidate

we could put both of these on the puppy linux homepage
before we submit the candidate to distrowatch

then we could just tell distrowatch to look there
rather than making them search on the forum

wanderer

[ozsouth]

@wanderer - good idea, though I'm beginning to wonder after reading all the above if we can find something to upload. Everything seems to have it's drawbacks & lots of work needed to remedy that. I'm beginning to think F96CE-5 (with apt) may be the best interim option. Vanilladpup is probably next best, but only because dimkr is the lone dev - should even 1 more skilled person joined him, the risks associated with lone devs (as shown by sfjro's aufs lack of a backup person) would go.

[wanderer]

hi ozsouth

dont worry

you guys are too hard on yourselves

any of the distros presently listed on the forum are fine for distrowatch and most puppy users

they are all excellent work
do what they need to do
and could be made to have a long lifespan

so distrowatch is not really a problem

however

(just my opinion)
i do think it would be a good idea to make a

64 bit and 32 bit
debian based
woof-ce distro
that was reproducible
and would make a complete full function, generally error free, base

just so that the gurus could collaborate on one distro if they wanted to
and another person could take over the work if needed

they could use this as the compatible base platform for applications
as jamesbond has suggested

peebee says the submissions we have now are pretty much that with maybe a little work

and there is plenty of time
so it might be something the gurus would be willing to consider

wanderer

[wizard]

@ozsouth

The way I see it we have 3 choices:

1. submit a newer Pup to Distrowatch
2. wait for the "perfect" distro to be built, then submit that
3. do nothing

Really don't think the users care if it is WoofCE compliant. Distros like F95, F96ce_4 and BW64 that have been "polished" are more likely to attract new users and positive reviews.

Don't really see a downside to choice #1

Thanks
wizard

[dimkr]

For those worried about the longevity and sustainability of BookwormPup64 or Puppy as a whole, I opened this PR, which upstreams many changes and hacks I extracted from the 10.0.6 ISO. There could be more, it's hard to go file by file and find them.

[wanderer]

thank you dimkr

for all your work

but dont kill yourself

wanderer

[dimkr]

but dont kill yourself

And for those who want to help test this PR and find more hidden changes in past Puppy releases that they want to see in future releases: please don't rest too much

[fredx181]

Common folks don't use operating systems. They use __applications__ that runs on top of the operating system, e.g. web browsing, word processing, spreadsheet, media players, audio editing, games, music / video authoring, livestreaming, servers, etc.

Why not aim to make Puppy a platform that can run as many useful applications as possible, with as little fuss as possible? In other word, the most compatible platform to run useful applications? All other stuff (technology, etc) should be subservient to this purpose. Along with portability, user-friendliness, instant recovery if one makes a mistake, that would make Puppy stand out.

That sounds as music in my ears Can you perhaps go in more detail about your view and how, compared to how things are done now, e.g. how latest Puppies (or others) are currently made ?

[Clarity]

IIRC WoofCE is great pathway for this discussion as it offers 2 vehicles for new OR experienced members: An ISO-IMG as well as the Reproducible Builder (aka WoofCE). ALL here know that.

@wizard postulates 3 options and I agree with he and others of taking our newest and best to present on DW. I applaud @dimkr in his directions to lead to a reasonable generative offering!

Additionally, I THINK, we should ALSO promote his Vanilla v11 as a secondary for it offerings as it, too, will attract users who would chip in to make these distros better in 'any' reports that could/may be exposed in greater use.

This is said in keeping with the spirit of what is a Puppy in these modern times.

@jamesbond and @fredx181 BOTH know how much I respect their views. But I want to add: EVERY HUMAN wants a new car! In addition to a new car, they want 'stability'. The forum continues, IMHO, strive to deliver stability in the new cars produced from release or version to release-version. That, I think, is the over-rider that keep attracting membership and contributions.

AS such we dont go looking for stuff that is old: we already have that running on our systems. We are attracted to new stuff to see if it not only performs as well as my old, but offers new things which improve our productivity.

"Humans are; and will continue to be curious."

[Clarity]

Packages are a key part of any OS or distro. APT has a new contribution seen here viewtopic.php?t=11399

[dimkr]

Additionally, I THINK, we should ALSO promote his Vanilla v11

I think we should NOT 'promote' early and incomplete development builds with many known issues, especially if the target audience is new users.

[Clarity]

Additionally, I THINK, we should ALSO promote his Vanilla v11

I think we should NOT 'promote' early and incomplete development builds with many known issues, especially if the target audience is new users.

So sorry for that support to get behind you. If one of your other WoofCE offerings is appropriate, I'm sure it would be welcomed.

Peace!

[wanderer]

hi clarity

your support for puppy is greatly appreciated

we tried to bug dimkr into using his vanilla pup before
so he is probably tired of it

however it appears that he is trying to clean up bookworm64 for woof-ce
too bad we cant help him
it appears to be a ton of work

i think that is one project that is very important for the whole puppy community
since having a reproducible build is key

maybe we can test it or do something else useful

wanderer

[wanderer]

hi all

i think we should put screenshots of radkys bookworm64 and peebees bookworm32
and links to their announcements and downloads
on the top of the puppy linux home page now
this will help distrowatch find everything

thanks

wanderer

[Jasper]

It would be nice to see 'users' action screenshots of their OS in action.

Similar to the topic "Show us your desktop"

viewtopic.php?t=429&start=840

Does it need to be just the default desktop only?

[fredx181]

Just my 2 cents:
I think a good Puppy candidate to list on DistroWatch is a Puppy from a developer who is frequently visiting this forum (BookwormPup dev @radky is not AFAIK).
(edit: the fact that @radky didn't reply at all in this thread says it all, I think, not that I feel like judging him, just as a fact / observation)
So IMO then Vanilla-Dpup seems to be a better choice to me possibly than BookwormPup as @dimkr (as Vanilla-dpup dev) is much more active replying here and being helpful (but... I know..., that can change in the future, of course).
edit: or any other recent Puppy build, just saying that in my opinion the connection of developer with this forum is very important.

[dimkr]

I think it would be best to automate the build process of BookwormPup64 so anyone can create projects based on it or just continue its development if needed (and that would be the first time somebody adopts a Puppy flavor after its developer disappears or loses interest).

If the build process is automated and publicly available, putting BookwormPup64 on Distrowatch puts less pressure on @radky to support it in now or in the long term, and allows easier development and collaboration (through the standard git flow) compared to a single person doing most of the work and inconvenient code sharing in a forum.

[Clarity]

I think most of us agree with @fredx181's comment of frequency of a development (team/person) for any given project. For example, EXTON's PUP excellent offerings he has built, where after deposit to the forum, has been visited rarely by him. That is not a negative, but some visitation frequency is needed to offer support steps from time to time.

@peebee offers an excellent blend of WoofCE PUPs. I am not sure if his PUPs are total WoofCE versions, but I have tested and used his 64bit blends in the past. They are stable and perform well. I applauded his Slacko continuations from the works of @01micko which continues to work very well with no issues and has been migrated to the latest of Slackware offering to be a capable distro. Then, too, he is in a position to bring WoofCE's "Noble" to the kennel arena for 64bit PCs as well. In fact, since Noble is LTS, I think many would accept this at this time as a good pathway forward. As such may be one of the best choices considering the effort to support a distro along with the very fact that Fred alludes to; namely presence regularly on the forum.

Maybe we can get behind one/some of his 64bit offerings if he is feels it would serve the community well.

KL's are progressing well with several flavors which, though not WoofCEs, are moving to GIT. Their community is offering ISOs in conjunction with the builders from the developers there. Could a GIT KL be considered a PUP? Could it be offered on DW as a distro from the PUP community/family?

The community seems, here in the thread, see value with a DW offering. DW, today, has EASY, and FATDOG from this community.

Hope some of this is meaningful in some small way.

[wiak]

I believe the thread is about marketing a version of Puppy Linux, which is a distro in its own right. It would be a nonsense, in my opinion, to post info about a KL distro to Distrowatch pretending it is some new version of Puppy Linux. If anyone wants a Distrowatch 'presence' for any current KL variant there is nothing to stop them announcing that on Distrowatch.

In terms of marketing this forum, which to me is more important, every distro featured here could do with being marketed in order to attract in new members who may well be more interested in one or others of the different distros offerings here. A nonsense to call distro Puppy Linux when it is not Puppy Linux. Surely Puppy enthusiasts want actual Puppy Linux distros to continue to be developed in line with ever advancing Linux technology?

People who would be interested in full multi-user, perfectly compatible mainstream package manager using, in fully flexible frugal install layered, able to run fully from RAM, should usefully know that this is the best forum to come to, for the likes of debiandogs, and also KL/firstrib based systems. But totally wrong to market these as Puppy Linux since that describes a well known run as single root user system that does not use upstream underlying system scripts (a fact some users may enjoy and prefer).

[jamesbond]

A nonsense to call distro Puppy Linux when it is not Puppy Linux. Surely Puppy enthusiasts want actual Puppy Linux distros to continue to be developed in line with ever advancing Linux technology?

(Emphasis mine). Which begs the perennial question: What is a "Puppy Linux" distro? What qualifies a distro to be "Puppy Linux"?

[mimine]

Keep it simple.

[mistfire]

A nonsense to call distro Puppy Linux when it is not Puppy Linux. Surely Puppy enthusiasts want actual Puppy Linux distros to continue to be developed in line with ever advancing Linux technology?

(Emphasis mine). Which begs the perennial question: What is a "Puppy Linux" distro? What qualifies a distro to be "Puppy Linux"?

1. There is no kernel modules inside initrd. The initrd will do the layered root filesystem setup on boot.
2. The root filesystem was layered fs
3. Able to load savefile or savefolder
4. Able to load in full ram
5. the kernel modules must be in seperate sfs modules
6. Able to load/unload sfs modules
7. The kernel has builtin storage device, input device, filesystem kernel modules

[mimine]

1. There is no kernel modules inside initrd. The initrd will do the layered root filesystem setup on boot.
2. The root filesystem was layered fs
3. Able to load savefile or savefolder
4. Able to load in full ram
5. the kernel modules must be in seperate sfs modules
6. Able to load/unload sfs modules
7. The kernel has builtin storage device, input device, filesystem kernel modules

Are you sure an official puppy must have all this ?
In my opinion :
3 optional
4 optional (if i remember correctly : if installed on hard disk, wont be all in ram)
5 optional
6 optional
I may be wrong.

[wiak]

1. There is no kernel modules inside initrd. The initrd will do the layered root filesystem setup on boot.
2. The root filesystem was layered fs
3. Able to load savefile or savefolder
4. Able to load in full ram
5. the kernel modules must be in seperate sfs modules
6. Able to load/unload sfs modules
7. The kernel has builtin storage device, input device, filesystem kernel modules

Are you sure an official puppy must have all this ?
In my opinion :
3 optional
4 optional (if i remember correctly : if installed on hard disk, wont be all in ram)
5 optional
6 optional
I may be wrong.

You are correct. Much is optional. Flexibility is truly the key characteristics of forum distros. Top definition was limiting. We aim for no limits as far as technology allows.

[mimine]

You are correct. Much is optional. Flexibility is truly the key characteristics of forum distros. Top definition was limiting. We aim for no limits as far as technology allows.

thanks