Whats up in Puppy World

[dimkr]

2. based on a particular piece of code

3. How much does this piece of code need to change for this thing to become a 'not Puppy'?

4. Same thing, but s/piece of code/idea

[dogcat]

Let's split hairs. Heirs?

Puppy Linux has never ever had a declared "official" release that was a shake and bake coming out of Woof or WoofCE.

As a matter of fact, Puppy Linux emerged without the help of Woof. Actually anything created using Woof or WoofCE are simply a different method (more automated) to produce a Puppy.

I believe Puppy Linux is actually more a certain feeling rather than a method to glue it together.

If you build something using Woof or WoofCE and want to call it "Puppy xx" simply because the distro specs says that? I counter that "distro specs" with "does it feel like a Puppy?

I may be completely wrong here but I think Puppy Linux is much more a certain feel and idealology than anything else.

[fredx181]

hi all

i have a question

is a "puppy"

1. based on a concept

or

2. based on a particular piece of code

wanderer

Hahaha. Here we go again.
While we're at it, I'll add the third question:

3. Who gets to decide, whether a particular distro is "puppy" or "not puppy"?

Get your popcorns ready gentlemen.

Ok, I decided, it has small ears, a small nose and eyes... ohh... unbelievable... how cute ... !

[fredx181]

Seriously, how about this? Just a thought.
If someone shares a distro and calls it 'puppy' or 'pup' it's a Puppy (unless perhaps when many people here object that it's called like that, then it will not be accepted being a puppy, edit: probably it will be discussed if it's appropriate (or not) appearing in e.g. the "Mainline Puppy" section).
For example, Fatdog is named as it is, so it's not a Puppy, it's Fatdog, Kennel Linux, EasyOS and Debiandog also aren't named as 'puppy', so they are not (and have their own section in this forum).
Mentioning e.g. "puppy-like" in the description of a distro is another thing of course.

[mikewalsh]

I think most of us will agree that VanillaDPup is definitely a "Puppy" but "official" is another thing to define, does the UN declare it as 'official' ? Ok, not, but who does ?

A fork is a fork

BionicPup64, FossaPup64, [...] were built using modified versions of woof-CE (that were never published, btw), making them forks (and partially closed-source) although they're featured in puppylinux.com and distrowatch.com as 'official'.

(Same with BookwormPup64, by the way)

Oh, crikey.....you're NOT one of these open-source 'evangelists', are you Dima? So; do I take it from these disparaging remarks that you weren't a fan of PhilB's development style?

Mike.

[fredx181]

A fork is a fork

BionicPup64, FossaPup64, [...] were built using modified versions of woof-CE (that were never published, btw), making them forks (and partially closed-source) although they're featured in puppylinux.com and distrowatch.com as 'official'.

(Same with BookwormPup64, by the way)

Oh, crikey.....you're NOT one of these open-source 'evangelists', are you Dima? So; do I take it from these disparaging remarks that you weren't a fan of PhilB's development style?

I think @dimkr is just saying (but correct me if I'm wrong) that it happened before (built from forks) and was accepted as "official".
But what are we talking about ? Are there any rules that we are obliged to follow ? (if not follow, bring someone to court ?!!) (edit: but maybe I'm a bit naive)

[dimkr]

Are there any rules that we are obliged to follow ?

What I'm saying is, if using woof-CE makes your creation 'official', then the stuff previously featured in puppylinux.com, distrowatch and everywhere else doesn't obey this rule because it was built using something derived from woof-CE, and not woof-CE as-is.

(And it's bad for the project because developers tend to disappear and others can't continue their work. They kept the tools they used to themselves. But this is another matter, just like the GPL violation going on here.)

You won't find a set of 'rules' Puppy follows, because it's a mess and not developed by a single, collaborating team that has equal access to code, 'means of production' and infrastructure. The one who controls over puppylinux.com and gets to decide what's featured there 'owns' Puppy more than anyone else, even if most development and user activity happen elsewhere.

EDIT: in a very non-scientific test, the total number of lines in the woof-CE fork I use to build my Vanilla Dpup 11.0.x development builds is about 0.01% the number of lines in upstream woof-CE. If this is a 'Puppy', then using 0.01% of woof-CE is enough to make something a 'Puppy'. Find out what features are implemented in this 0.01%, and there you have your definition of Puppy.

[rockedge]

They kept the tools they used to themselves. But this is another matter, just like the GPL violation going on here.

Lots of times there are no tools. Like I've directly said to you many times, woof-CE manipulation to get a build from here to there is DIFFICULT.

With F96-CE_4 it was CLEARLY stated that there was no updates or maintenance planned for the distro. A one off to improve the Fossapup64 one more time that was to be a bridge to the next "real Puppy". So what if can't be reproduced? It was never meant too. And if the developer(s) disappears or moves on no big deal...since F96-CE_4 is what it is and if someone wants to work on a version to bring to the latest in Focal Fossa and updated utilities that are found in most Puppy Linux variants, then they go for it and it will be remastered more than likely.

It would be great to be able to woof-CE build a F96-CE_4 because it would now be version 5...........big problem is knowing what repo to place the new compiled PET packages for Fossapup64 so the woof-CE recipe can be modified to use them.

[dimkr]

DIFFICULT.

I'm not saying it's easy, and I understand why people do things the quick (and often dirty) way.

But now we also have a reproducibility problem with our new candidate for the 'official' spot, not with a placeholder. I wonder if one year from now, when it starts to get old, we'll need something less polished to replace it. Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that Puppy development freezes after each popular release, because its single developer abandons it and disappears.

[rockedge]

@dimkr I've been building a bunch of Fossapup64's with woof-CE lately, and I feel like even in this simpler form and a bit less polished than F96-CE_4 is, it is a solid distro. It is using the very latest Focal Fossa upstream updates during the build and if we could add a bunch of those recently compiled packages for Fossapup64, this would be a really good product.

With the 6.9.1 huge kernel and with the added bdrv supplying APT and Synaptic it runs really well and I have repeatedly successfully installed Zoneminder via scripts on it, which performs really well.

I would like to directly generate a F96-CE_5 with all the latest without taking first the woof-CE assembled Fossapup64 and manually making changes to make the F96-CE

[mikewalsh]

@rockedge :-

Hm. I believe that what I wrote in a different thread earlier today also has real relevance here.....in light of @dimkr 's statement above:-

....this also highlights one of the major differences between Puppy and 'mainstream'. Mainstream distros nearly always have development 'teams'; groups of individuals that spend a good part of their time doing nothing BUT work on OS problems & issues, and try to respond to reports/complaints/issues ASAP. The Puppy community doesn't function like that.

It largely operates on the famed 'do-ocracy' principle. In other words, if somebody feels strongly enough that something wants 'doing', then that individual will often take on the responsibility of personally 'doing' whatever it is that they feel needs to be 'done'.

Oh, that's not a very good summary. The following probably describes it rather better:-

https://medlabboulder.gitlab.io/democra ... do-ocracy/

And if the community WERE to become structured in exactly the above way, I feel it would lose a lot of the sheer 'spontaneity' that makes it such a fun place to be. Because certain individuals would then feel obligated to HAVE to fix problems/issues FOR everybody else....and getting constantly nagged by others to 'get on' and 'fix' issue X,Y or Z is never conducive to producing your best efforts (especially when it's all unpaid work, and particularly if you, personally, don't see the need for it).

Fer Chrissakes, guys; I KNOW I frequently "lose the plot", but all this is a 'hobby'. Why make it out to be more than it actually is? Is it really a life-and-death situation.......or is there a sizeable degree of personal 'pride' creeping in here from various individuals..?

As is so often the case, the largest collection of complaints (and general 'nit-picking') always seems to originate from those with the fewest real abilities. C'mon; let's try & keep things in perspective, yeah?

Mike.

[wanderer]

hi all

i agree with mikewalsh

as a person with the least abilities who has made the most complaints

i feel its important to keep this as a hobby

instead of trying to make people do
things we want them to do instead of what they want to do
which will just annoy them and burn them out

i think we should just look around the forum
for distros that people are working on
that we feel are a good representation of puppy
and promote them
helping and encouraging them as much as we can

for example dimkrs vanilla dpup and rockedges F96-CE

i also think we should include the other puppy-like distros
in our promotion
like wiaks firstrib and fredx181 debiandog

for example in my case
even though it was under my nose for years
i completely missed debiandog
which i am now playing with
and which answers all of my previous complaints

so i will no longer be able to complain
which i know will break many hearts

wanderer

[mikewalsh]

@wanderer :-

Aye, you're absolutely right. There's a LOT of damn good stuff happening in the community right now. I know I have a gentle "dig" at folks from time to time, but there's no malice intended. More my lunatic sense of humour coming out.....

Truly, I have nothing but admiration for all those I've mentioned above. I only wish I were HALF so capable.....or but a fraction as dedicated!!

Mike.

[wanderer]

hi mikewalsh

no offense taken
you are right
as well as funny

and though i and others may mean well
its important to not let the noise cloud the issue

wanderer

[wanderer]

so now the question is

what distros on the forum should we promote

and how

wanderer

[dimkr]

all this is a 'hobby'. Why make it out to be more than it actually is?

It's not a life and death situation, but as a user, I don't care if the developer of the distro I'm using is having fun, if this distro has issues that annoy me and lacks basic features I need.

I don't like it when the OS I use interferes with my own computing hobbies, and that's what pushed me to revive dpup and use it myself

[williwaw]

to revive dpup....

.01% reduction is a factor of 10,000 to 1
have you actually restructured your fork that extensively?

[dimkr]

have you actually restructured your fork that extensively?

Yes

This is my fork:
https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... /woof-code

This upstream woof-CE:
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... /woof-code

You'll see the difference just by navigating the directory tree.

This is the delta between the two:

https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... pup-11.0.x

Showing 3,696 changed files with 6,129 additions and 279,343 deletions.

(and AFAIK this is inaccurate, lines from moved files count as both deleted and added - but you get the idea)

Most big changes are listed in README: https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... py-builder

Some specific examples of simplification and cleanup:

https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... rc.sysinit (365 comments, most of the first 38 first lines can be deleted because they're irrelevant )
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... rc.sysinit (804 lines)

https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... kernel-kit (two scripts plus short diff compared to Debian kernel)
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... kernel-kit (more code, many configuration files, big amounts of old code that doesn't work)

https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... t/build.sh (72 lines)
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... t/build.sh (many lines don't work anymore, most of it is unused - 1131 lines)

https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... logout_gui (reimplemented using yad - 27 lines)
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... logout_gui (original gtkdialog-based implementation - 114 lines)

[wanderer]

hi dimkr

it appears that you have created your own masterpiece

can you tell us a more about it
and what your goals are

wanderer

[dimkr]

can you tell us a more about it
and what your goals are

Everything is in the README, but this information is relevant to this topic only if you think the thing this fork builds can be considered an 'official Puppy' or a 'Puppy' at all.

[wanderer]

...

well in my opinion there is no question vanilla dpup is a puppy
it may be a fork of woof-ce
but it is woof-ce

...

as to an official puppy
since there is no longer a puppy master
everything falls to the community to judge
so if we have a vote
and the community agrees it is an official puppy
it is an official puppy

period

...

as for my vote
it is an offical puppy
its even built with woof-ce

wanderer

[dimkr]

its even built with woof-ce

* With <1% of woof-CE

If that's enough to make it a 'Puppy', then all distros in this forum are 'Puppy'.

[wanderer]

in my opinion ( unless the developer states they are not or the community votes they are not ) they are

and thats what this thread is all about

wanderer

[wanderer]

i think fredx181 said it best

and i quote

"Seriously, how about this? Just a thought.
If someone shares a distro and calls it 'puppy' or 'pup' it's a Puppy (unless perhaps when many people here object that it's called like that, then it will not be accepted being a puppy, edit: probably it will be discussed if it's appropriate (or not) appearing in e.g. the "Mainline Puppy" section).
For example, Fatdog is named as it is, so it's not a Puppy, it's Fatdog, Kennel Linux, EasyOS and Debiandog also aren't named as 'puppy', so they are not (and have their own section in this forum).
Mentioning e.g. "puppy-like" in the description of a distro is another thing of course."

wanderer

[williwaw]

and thats what this thread is all about

I appreciate Dimas work and I appreciate the basic tools Dima put in his builds
But.......

many people like puppy to have all their favorite tools and apps, and part of what makes one puppy different from another is the variety of build possibilities,
and building up a full featured puppy and maintaing the extras is no small task either.

If I have been reading Dima's comments correctly, he would prefer to work with woof, while others build out the variety.

(My own preference is to install the apps I need to do what I do, and vanilla works well for that, as is.)

[wanderer]

i agree williwaw

historically there have been many ways to build a puppy ( or puppy-like ) distro

and many kinds of puppies ( or puppy-like ) distros

that is i feel what makes puppy so cool

everyone can use their own approach

and make something that addresses their particular desires and needs

and maybe it will also be useful for others as well

its a do-ocracy

wanderer

[mikewalsh]

@williwaw :-

If I understand correctly, Dima codes for a living. Therefore, it's obviously like a second language to him.

I get the impression that, either from experience or from personal preferences, he's learnt the value of working with a regularly updated, regularly-audited stable codebase from an experienced, seasoned group of contributors......where's there's no surprises, and the upgrade path, etc, is predictable. I could be way off-base, but I don't think Dima particularly cares for "bad" or "sloppy" code, either.

All of which honestly makes me wonder why he ever bothers with the chaotic, happy mayhem this community often exhibits.....

I'm very glad he does seem to patiently "put up with us", though!

Mike.

[dimkr]

If I understand correctly, Dima codes for a living. Therefore, it's obviously like a second language to him.

That's true, but the things I do for living and the Puppy stuff I work on are very different. "Programming" is not exactly a single domain of expertise, it's an umbrella term for different roles with different methodologies, standards and priorities.

I always feel like I must do good work and keep things simple, easy to maintain and reproducible in my hobby development because it's hobby development (and not "although it's hobby development"). Most of my development time is (unsurprisingly) at work, so if I have a short <1h window to work on a pet project (and my schedule is irregular), I need everything to be tidy so I can start working right away, and leave things nice and tidy when I'm done to prepare for the next time window. It's easier for me to do hobby development and I utilize my time more efficiently when I do it more "professionally" - sometimes even more efficiently than the work I do for living

[wiak]

I'm not even sure of the meaning of a "puppy-lookalike" anymore. I suppose that idea revolved around use of JWM/ROX, but not sure that combination is a good way to describe Puppy Linux without severely limiting its development.

I can't help but feel that since there really no longer is any lead Puppy developer (is there?) then only a woof-CE build (or remaster of that) currently results in an actual Puppy distro. But what is the trademark and copyright situation? If BarryK still has trademark rights to distro name Puppy then only if he sanctioned it could anyone come forward with a non-woof-CE design and call their build "Puppy" surely?

So aside from almost unmaintained woof-CE, Puppy is standing precariously on its Bookworm version legs (along with aging fossapup variants). Certainly someone could build an almost completely Puppy-like look and feel distro with even identical feature set and (pup)mode name conventions without using woof-CE at all! Couldn't be called a Puppy though if that is a protected trademark.

[wiak]

Many seem happy enough using Vanilla dpup, but I guess they cant then say they are using Puppy any more.