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

[wiak]

This is unique to Puppy.

It isn't. I am pretty sure that is not even unique for the various other distros that have thread sections on this forum. Any distro that offers save from RAM persistence, only when user wants to, provides that useful characteristic. Check Slax, antiX and so on.

[dogcat]

Something that may have to be considered is the total size in words of the introduction.

Currently Puppy has a word count of 109.
Currently Ubuntu has a word count of 94
Currently Debian has a word count of 164
Currently EasyOS has a word count of 57
Currently MX Linux has a word count of 62

This is a random sampling used as example. A word limit will limit what can be included in the description.

[mikeslr]

Good feed-back. Not surprisingly the main objections in all had to do with SFSes. Clarity's suggestion to drop 4b entirely is very tempting. I'll explain below why I'm reluctant.

You may find this surprising about someone who spent his life writing. While my ability to visualize things in four dimensions is strong, my ability to remember the exact meaning of terms is weak. I struggle to find the right words to describe what I see. Being precise takes time and effort. And why I've never tried to learn more than the rudiments of any programming language.

The real problem is that we have to live with the direction taken by others. Maybe someone knows why the Linux Org chose to develop Overlays rather than AUFS. An initrd can be written to manage either, albeit, grub's code must be modified. cf. https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 82#p117782

AUFS is, AFAIK, much more flexible and user-friendly. dimkr and I keep mis-communicating because the same term is used for two entirely different things. What I've sometimes referred to as 'alphabet.sfses' and 'application.sfs' --in order to provide necessary terms-- are handled differently because of the code in initrd treats them differently. Both are squash-file-systems. Both may include files obtained anywhere. Adrv.sfs, bdrv.sfs, fdrv.sfs, ydrv.sfs zdrv.sfs –alphabet drives-- must be located adjacent to puppy_version.sfs in order for their contents to be copied into RAM; and cannot be 'unloaded' [except by a reboot after such file-system on storage is moved or deleted]. Mistfire has modified the initrd in Quickpup to handle more 'alphabet.sfses'. By convention we limit the contents of fdrv.sfs and zdrv.sfs, but don't limit what adrv.sfs and ydrv.sfs contain. Initrd, itself, doesn't care. As a result of its code, the only thing which matters to initrd is the name we assign to the SFS. To conserve writing I've referred to them as adrv.sfs, etc. But the name actually used must specify the Puppy which is to use it, e.g. fdrv_dpupbw64_10.0.6.sfs. On boot-up bookworm64_10.0.6's initrd will ignore files with the name fdrv.sfs, fdrv_bionicpup64_8.0.sfs and even fdrv_dpupbw64_10.0.5.sfs.
'Alphabet.sfses' are system files. It makes sense that you can't remove system files from a running system.

Application.sfses are not system files. Their content can be anything, even just documents or pixmaps. I have an SFS which only contains dozens of fonts I rarely, but occasionally, use. We can name them anything, e.g. gimp.sfs, graphic-suite.sfs, junk.sfs. Their content, however, can not conflict with that of system files, including the content of a Save. They are not copied into RAM unless and until we choose to load them. They must 'hang from /mnt' but otherwise can be anywhere. And while we can choose to un-SFS-load them at any time under AUFS, if a Save is in use it will contain instructions to sfs-load previously loaded application.sfses unless and until we choose to SFS-(un)load it and execute a Save to preserve that condition.

Under Overlays alphabet.sfses have the same limitations as under AUFS, but more. Under Overlays, 'applications.sfses' can be loaded on-the fly. But the code to unload them on-the-fly developed under AUFS doesn't work. Fredx181 has published an alternate sfs-load whose purpose was to permit unloading SFSes on the fly under Overlays. He designated it as 'experimental' . I think it has been incorporated under Bookworm64. I did not test it extensively. [I think I used it once to load then unload the aforementioned 'fonts.sfs'.] All the applications I use can be installed via synaptic and/or available thanks to Mikewalsh's and other's work on portables. When possible, I choose the latter.

While I think the availability of portables should emphasized, I am unwilling to entirely discount the potential of 'application.sfses' and entirely fail to mention them. This is what I think is the essential difference:

I don't code. But Puppys have the dir2sfs code builtin that can be used to create a simple SFS, or after extraction repackage a pet or deb as an SFS. For more complicated applications, there's PaDS. PaDS will combine any number of pets, debs, and other packages and generate an SFS. In bookworm64 I can use synaptic to download but not install an application and all its dependencies, then copy the downloaded files from /var/cach/SOMEWHERE –where synaptic placed them-- into a specifically named folder and use PaDS to generate an SFS. Any application –or suite of applications-- which can be installed by synaptic and function can be packaged as an SFS, loaded and function. An installed application always requires RAM. An unloaded SFS requires no RAM. My desktop has 16Gbs of RAM. How an application becomes useable doesn't matter to me. But it does to what I believe are Puppys 'target audience': Window refugee's with older computers with limited RAM. PaDS GUI and its easy to follow instructions means even they could create SFSes to use as and when they wanted. And it doesn't matter which Puppy they choose to run --except as noted below in response to jasper- if the major distro offered the application and its infra-structure could be used.

Mikewalsh and others have published an extensive number of portables, I think some for each category of applications. But they won't run OOTB under every Puppy. Some are 'wrap-arounds' for AppImages which, 'though supposedly containing all dependencies, don't account for a Puppy's lack of the infra-structure built into Major Distros. I have sufficient knowledge that I can use the work Mike and others have done as templates to create other portables, e.g. a portable Waterfox using firefox portable as a template. But much is beyond me, and 'way above the paygrade' of a newby. Application SFSes remain an important vehicle for someone to obtain a Puppy possessing all the capabilities they need.

Jasper, as you know from your updates to applications, a woofed Puppy is a snapshot of the version of some major distro at the time the Puppy is created, lacking some of the infra-structure used by the Major and substituting Puppys own infra-structure to the extent necessary to achieve a functioning system. 'Binary-compatible' only means that the binaries of that Major can be directly installed. It's a 'term of art' we've used; never intended to suggest 'identical with'. Ubuntu 20 is not identical with Ubuntu 20.4. The Qt5 versions used in 20 prevent use of Qt5 dependent applications created for Ubuntu 20.4. Ubuntu does a system-wide upgrade. As a 'snapshot' we would have to develop a work-around, if possible.

I think someone who understands the 'import' and 'export' functions should consider working in the development of portables.

dimkr, you're right about not specifically mentioning the existence of more than one package manager. I think that the ability to install from the major's repo and applications created for Puppys is sufficient without mentioning how.

Will review what's been written and present another 'Draft' tomorrow.

[mikeslr]

Post script to the above about 'binary-compatibiity'. AFAIK, opting for a 'light-weight' Window-manager breaks identity even within a Linux Distro, itself. With JWM and radky's enhancements being absent, I opted to test the XFCE versions of Zorin and LinuxMint to try out the SpeechNote flatpak. Following the recipe as to how to do that went without incident. But SpeechNotes would not run, generating a notice that some KDE elements were missing. The name of the missing element was not used in any package available via apt or synaptic. And unlike Puppy, those distros do not provide diagnostic tools.

If 'binary-compatible' means identity, no one tells you that Zorin-xfce is not binary-compatible with Ubuntu gnome, or that LinuxMint-xfce is not binary-compatible with LinuxMint-cinnamon.

[tosim]

@wiak "y todays standards, Puppy Linux remains a reasonably small distro, that continues to provide an impressive range of often small applications and utilities that provide a great deal of every day needed functionality. It is also simple to install, easy to maintain, and full of flexible features that make it fun to play with.
That's Puppy Linux.
All the technical details about why, in terms of layered file system frugal install structure and so on, are neither unique nor important to explain in an introduction to Puppy as a great wee continuing to be developed dist"

Very well said

[Jasper]

We could just leave it to ChatGPT

@mikeslr I did not follow/understand the binary identity comment.

The OSes you list are all Ubuntu based. The desktop environment differentiates them.

I have missed the point.

[wizard]

@mikeslr

If 'binary-compatible' means identity, no one tells you that Zorin-xfce is not binary-compatible with Ubuntu gnome, or that LinuxMint-xfce is not binary-compatible with LinuxMint-cinnamon.

So the grass isn't really greener on that side of the fence.

wizard

[wanderer]

hi all

something to think about

this thread is about distrowatch candidates
but it is also about what is a puppy
and where puppy is going

in my opinion
puppy is not any particular set of code
but an idea
a relatively small essentially complete easily modified distro
that is both very useful
but also fun

the code has changed over time
the base binaries have changed over time

but the idea has stayed the same

a puppy
is any distro
created by the puppy community
and accepted by the puppy community

nothing more

i have been playing with debiandog for only a day
but it is obvious to me that this is a superior system

as some of you may be aware
i have few technical skills
and fewer social skills
but i am very comfortable using debiandog

i ran the script
and built a beautiful working distro in 15 minutes
i clearly understand how the system works
and see how to modify things

woof-ce is ok for some of the gurus
but it is unusable for most people
and this is a major drawback for the puppy community

woof-ce builds a distro
but make-live also builds a distro

one is difficult and opaque to use
one is easy and transparent to use

so this is what i propose

i think we should adopt debiandog as a puppy candidate
with fredx181s acceptance of course

we can always add puppy modifications to it
for the purists

we have a rare jewel under our feet
lets us make use of it to advance puppy


wanderer

[Wiz57]

@wanderer NO...While DebianDogs are hosted on the forum, they are not Puppy. They also have their own DistroWatch
announcements. While enthusiasm is a good quality, too much of it and it becomes evangelistic. By the way, it took you 15 minutes to download
the pieces necessary for your DebianDog...in that same 15 minutes, I downloaded 3 Puppy versions, and had them frugally installed on my old Acer
Aspire One netbook that went bonkers last week...I've got it back up and running, though all the cruft I'd gathered on it is gone, it is usable once again!
3 versions of Puppy, up and running in the same time it took you to get 1 DDog...and I'm on a slower metered data connection. THAT is one of the
primary reasons that I choose Puppys as my Linux flavor of choice...a complete operating system in as little as 300meg download...compared to more
than 1 gig d/l for most mainline distros, and that sometimes is just to get the installation disk files, let alone a complete OS.
Wiz

[wanderer]

hi wiz57

thanks for the reply

i understand emotions on this subject run high
and everyone rightly has their own opinion

but i think every option should at least be considered

however i wouldn't pay too much attention to me
i have been annoying people for a while on this forum
my only worry is that i will annoy fredx181
who is not involved in this in any way
(please accept my apology fredx181)

wanderer

[wiak]

By todays standards, Puppy Linux remains a reasonably small distro, that continues to provide an impressive range of often small applications and utilities that provide a great deal of every day needed functionality. It is also simple to install, easy to maintain, and full of flexible features that make it fun to play with.

That's Puppy Linux.

...a great wee, solid, and continuing to be developed distro

Superior is a loaded word. Depends on what a user intends using a distro for, and what they prefer.

I think it would be a big mistake to ever stop developing any distro, no matter how many users consider it 'better' or 'worse' than any other distro be these featured on this forum or not. Rather, the forum community should be proud of the diversity it caters for. If debiandog or kennel linux or whatever want a distrowatch presence that can also be done. All such marketing helps attracts new people to visit this forum, which long term is really itself more important as an active, friendly, and particularly helpful Linux resource in what is otherwise, all too often, a somewhat cold and arrogantly rude world of self-proclaimed technical superiors.

We should put in more effort to honour and celebrate all that we have produced and loudly recognise their equal value assets produced by our collaborative forum talents. Not doing so is the real weakness; we need to strongly support ongoing development of all forum distros rather than giving higher presidence to any one or another, which is destructive, unnecessary, and glaringly false, meaningless and a poor strategy in terms of increasing forum enthusiasm and productivity.

[fredx181]

@wanderer and everyone.
I'd suggest to stay on topic, this is about Puppy and e.g. DebianDogs, KL's are not.

[mikeslr]

An attorney writing a contract, Will, Trust, Law, Rule or Regulation always asks "What can go wrong? How can this be misunderstood?" Those questions result in a document which, hopefully, anticipate every problem and provide solutions that can't be misconstrued. To write the following, I've had to overcome years of practice. I've had to co-opt two terms, Supplemental and Auxiliary to replace, respectively, my previous use of "Application' and "Alphabet" as the latter would either be meaningless or require extensive explanation. The following focuses on effects rather than structures or processes. At 256 words it still leave unsaid much of what I consider would clearly enable a potential 'consumer' to realize how special Puppies are.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Woof, an open-source, configurable application, combines some Puppy light-on-RAM-demands components with some components of a highly regarded Linux Distro (that Puppy's 'binary-compatible') to produce 32 or 64 bit Puppies that are responsive, portable, and modular. Each provides:

(1) Portability: Puppy can boot from all storage media. It can share the partition used by Windows, another LinuxOS and other Puppies.
(2) A Base Module containing applications for commonplace activities and module management.
(3) The ability to augment that with Puppy's own creations and --for applications and components Woof did not use-- directly from its 'binary-compatible's' repositories.

Other Modules:

Puppy Portables provide applications for many activities, are 'self-contained' –including configurations-- and run from their respective locations. No RAM required when not in use.

Supplemental Modules are usually only one application. Loaded and unloaded 'on the fly', no RAM is required when unloaded; little if loaded but not opened. Supplementals, however, do not hold system or their own configurations.

Saves can be created to preserve settings and additional applications,. If only Saves are used Puppies operate not unlike any Linux run from a USB-Key with Persistence. Mistakes and malice can break applications or the system. However, Saves can be configured to only be updated on demand; and Puppies always can boot without a Save into a pristine condition.

Auxiliary Modules hold settings. If present they will be copied into RAM at boot-up. They can also hold applications; but that will complicate modification. The amount of RAM an Auxiliary uses is directly related to the size of its contents.
-=-=-=--=-=-
I can think of a few sentences/phrases whose absence might cut out another 40-50 characters, but result in an even greater degree of misunderstanding. Hopefully 256 isn't too many.

Your thoughts?

[wanderer]

hi mikesir

thanks for all the work you are doing

your definition sounds good to me

but i think you should move it to the whats up in puppy world thread

because that is where everyone is trying to decide where puppy is now and where it is going

so its sort of a moving target

and that input should help refine your definition

wanderer

[mikeslr]

hi mikesir

thanks for all the work you are doing

your definition sounds good to me

but i think you should move it to the whats up in puppy world thread

because that is where everyone is trying to decide where puppy is now and where it is going

so its sort of a moving target

and that input should help refine your definition

wanderer

Don't see a "What's up in puppy world" thread on DistroWatch, The question here is how to present an accurate but succint picture of Puppy when a visitor to DistroWatch clicks this: https://distrowatch.com/puppy

But frankly I don't like what I suggested in the prior post. Think I have a better idea.

[wanderer]

...

[wanderer]

hi miksir

actually

i think your definition fits the bill

why dont we send it in to distrowatch

wanderer

[Clarity]

@mikeslr you ask "What's up in ..."

[mikeslr]

My final suggested wording. I have other things to do with my time. 195 Words:

Each new Puppy now reflects 20 years experience in constructing responsive, portable, modular 32 and 64 bit systems.
Puppy can boot from all storage media. It can share the partition used by Windows, another LinuxOS and other Puppies. You never have to delete a functional Puppy to try a different one.

Puppy’s Modules:
The Base Module contains applications for commonplace activities; and can augment those with Puppy's creations and from the repositories of another respected Linux.

Puppy Portables are self-contained applications run from wherever located. Supplemental Modules are loaded and unloaded 'on the fly'. Distinct external units, their updates can not break your operating system and need never leave you with a worse version.

To preserve additional applications and settings across reboots:
Saves are dynamic. After a User creates one, the ‘Click of a button’ preserves changes. Since “Mistakes Happen”, Saves can be backed-up, changes tested before “The Click”; and Puppies can always boot to desktop using only the Base and (if present) Auxiliary Modules.
Auxiliary Modules are static. Best used (a) to only hold settings –easy to update (b) and/or applications you will never want to change.
Kernels are also separate modules which can be swapped.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edit, for accuracy added two words --new, now--o 1sr sentence

[wanderer]

hi mikesir

looks great
thank you for all your hard work
now get some rest and relaxation

i am going to repost it on the whats up in puppy world thread
so everyone will see it

and if its ok with you and everyone i will send it to distrowatch

wanderer

[mikeslr]

See note about edit,

[wanderer]

hi everyone

i feel the purpose of this thread has been accomplished
since bookworm has become our new distrowatch candidate

please go to the whats up in puppy world thread
for further developments

thanks

wanderer

[retiredt00]

Dear all there is an intense discussion going on a month now between this and the associated thread with almost 500 posts.
Since the matter appears to be resolve, why don't we go on with the distrowatch announcement?
Is it send in?
If not, who is sending it and when?

[wanderer]

hi retired00

the announcement has long ago been sent in
looking at the distrowatch page it appears they updated the date but didnt update the picture
i have sent them a number of reminders
and will continue to remind them
we will just have to keep reminding them until they complete the update

wanderer

[retiredt00]

Dear wanderer,
I think that didstrowatch accepts announcements only from the lead developers of a distribution.
I am not sure who this would be now days but I'm afraid your announcement has not been considered as will likely be the case for any future ones.
Distrowatch still shows Puppy Linux 22.12 announced by peebee as the last one
So I would like to ask again if radky or any of the current puppy builders/developers will announce bookworm puppy to distowatch

[wanderer]

hi retired00

they accepted our candidate from me last time
this appears just to be a glitch
i will keep contacting them
they should correct things soon

wanderer

[peebee]

Might help??:
https://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/p ... ement.html

Can we get @BarryK to "announce" the "release" on his blog?

[wiak]

Might help??:
https://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/p ... ement.html

Can we get @BarryK to "announce" the "release" on his blog?

When was that written and put on ibiblio? Seems like people been wasting a lot of their own time and effort working on descriptions of new release when that is already written. Why??? Coordination lacking a bit there, so bound to waste others time IMO. Would seem sensible to me if rockedge managed such matters since Puppy domain centred on forum and one stable point of contact for such matters, when Puppy development no longer has stable leader, would avoid such time wasting.

Barry retired from leading Puppy dev matters so unless making a welcome return his announcing such matters doesnt make sense to me.

[IdfbAn]

Might help??:
https://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/p ... ement.html

Can we get @BarryK to "announce" the "release" on his blog?

When was that written and put on ibiblio? Seems like people been wasting a lot of their own time and effort working on descriptions of new release when that is already written.

The text on that page is just copied from the existing BookwormPup64 and 32 forum topics.

[wiak]

Might help??:
https://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/p ... ement.html

Can we get @BarryK to "announce" the "release" on his blog?

When was that written and put on ibiblio? Seems like people been wasting a lot of their own time and effort working on descriptions of new release when that is already written.

The text on that page is just copied from the existing BookwormPup64 and 32 forum topics.

That BW64 text looks really fine to me, and written a year ago (!)

The only argument against it would be if a less technical paragraph is to be favoured, which might be the case since lots of Puppy way of putting things doesn't mean anything to most Linux users outside of the Puppy world. Having said that, most people who use Linux for their desktop are not your typical Windows office desktop user, and that BW64 text makes no mention of the various Pupmodes, which mean nothing outside - only Puppy-insider item mentioned seems to be Woof-CE...