Moderator: Forum moderators
Dog lovers:
I've read the docs, they're very well written with the new user, or curious person, in mind. But one thing is lacking: What's actually better about Puppy? It says that 10GB of space is required, my existing Install of Debian 12 is no where near that fat, so Puppy is clearly not 'lite'. Is it faster then? Seems there's a version based on Debian 12, so what's different than Debian 12 itself? I'm tempted but I still 'don't get it' -- what, really is Puppy?
what, really is Puppy?
Operating System that use SFS files to create a LAYERED file system that is merged to be fully functional with persistence on just about any medium any partition including directly installed in a sub-directory directly in a Windows (any model) NTFS partition or any other Linux compatible partition containing any other Distro as a "frugal" install. Means basically using a sub-directory what ever level deep to "install" an entire and fully functional Linux type operating system.
It says that 10GB of space is required
Where does it say that? Are you referencing Bookworm64?
I run F96-CE_4 which downloads as an ISO at 538 M. When it is running after start at idle it uses about 290 M of RAM. Fossapup64 is even smaller as an ISO. Some of the older Pup's have ISO's that are under 300 M and will idle with 190 M of RAM.
My F96-CE_4 machine also has another 50 or so Puppy's and KLV variants on it all ready to be booted from a menu at system startup. Show me a Debian that doesn't install to an entire partition and DebianDog doesn't count.
Thanks, that's an answer. It's this run in memory thing. Sounds like a good idea. I was pointed to Puppy by a guy on 'Unix&Linux' regarding my wanting to make a USB stick of my existing Debian and run it as an overlay or 'live' system, since USBs are so slow and they don't like too many writes. I use an overlay with Firefox, which chatters to the disk non-stop. Moving the whole system to RAM and then writing it back to storage on quitting sounds like a very good idea.
@rayandrews First and foremost let me say 
to the kennels!
Moving the whole system to RAM and then writing it back to storage on quitting sounds like a very good idea.
Works really well. Here we have Puppy Linux, Kennel Linux and DebianDog variants to choose from and they all have the feature you seek, to be able to run in RAM and the have the choice to save a session or not.
Puppy Linux in pupmode 13 does exactly that. Both DebianDog (might recommend you check it out) and Kennel Linux can perform in the same way. In Kennel Linux it's called RAM2 mode.
Puppy Linux can also be started to run in RAM and save on demand and choose to save the session at system reboot or shutdown.
Moving the whole system to RAM and then writing it back to storage on quitting sounds like a very good idea
Another plus is only the changes are written to the storage. The rest of the system is read-only in squash files (.sfs) that are read at system boot to layer the system and merge the saved sessions. No need to write these at all. Makes this a good operating system that can live totally on a USB flash drive that can boot.
1. It's smaller. My Debian Dog Bookworm (Debian 12) is pretty fat now judging by the number of packages I have installed, but it still only takes a little under 2GB of disk space. It always gets smaller when you "remaster" your installation into a new squashfs. My full disk conventional install Debian takes 6GB.
2. It's neither faster nor slower than my full disk conventional install Debian.
3. Puppy (or Debian Dog) can coexist with another Linux or other Puppies without the need for repartitioning. That is convenient.
4. It's arguably easier to backup and restore although... well, not really. It's only psychological. But "psychological" matters to some people.
5. A looong time ago, there was a live ISO for Debian that could be run from a USB stick with persistence. Maybe they still provide it. If you prefer that, well, there is that.
When is Puppy NOT better?
Strictly speaking, "Puppy" is a distro. Its own distro. I used a pure breed Puppy some 15 years ago and although I loved it I also hated it because we were completely dependent on a small repository of Puppy packages. So I wanted something. If it was there, I was golden. If it wasn't, I had to beg, and not always get what I wanted. I moved to Debian for one reason only, because Debian has the largest repository in the world. And as time went by, it became increasingly common for developers to distribute .deb packages on their own websites. That is very common now. In second place are .rpm packages and probably arch .pac in third, but neither gets even close to being so common as .deb packages. I find that a VERY compelling reason to use Debian although Puppies are more polished. Now with Debian Dogs, we get the best of the two worlds. A Debian Dog is a "Puppified" Debian that can use all the .deb packages, run on a frugal installation and has most of the typical Puppy toiletry. So that old drawback is gone.
Sounds good. My Debian is very heavily customized, when I upgraded from 9 to 12 in one go, Debian wouldn't do it (not surprised!) so I had to do a clean install and it took me a hundred hours to import all my customizations. Can I make my own Puppy from my existing setup? Yeah, I think I can, but is that only for experts? Or what might be the easiest way? There's lots of stuff I'd want within the read-only layer.
It says that 10GB of space is required,
That was probably someone talking about having free space on the drive to be able to add software and store stuff.
Puppy installs need around 400 to 800 MB for an install.
Some Puppy versions are bigger in size than others.
Just look at the size of the Puppy version ISO.
That will be how much room needed for an install.
Seems there's a version based on Debian 12
Really wish there was another way to say this.
In no way is this version of Puppy like Debian 12.
Based on is about it using the same core Link files and programs that Debian 12 uses.
These are what any Linux OS uses.
But because this version of Puppy is using the same core Linux files and programs as Debian 12.
It can use software packages that are provided on Debian12's software repositories.
Well, good chance it can.
It is a way for Puppy specific versions, to have access to program packages, without having to have specific Puppy version, software repositories.
It can use repositories of other Linux OS's.
Software packages have to be compiled for a specific Linux OS to fully work.
Good thing is, usually the big issue is what versions of core Linux files and programs in the Linux OS, used when compiling, to get a package that will work.
The things you do not tell us, are usually the clue to fixing the problem.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be older.
This is not what I expected 
Thanks all. This seems to be a very vibrant community whereas Debian seems old and nasty and sluggish. Anyway I have a short term solution vis a vis my USB stick -- overlayroot does the job. That's clearly something, sorta in the same ballpark as Puppy. I'll work up the gumption to give this go. Sounds like one has the functionality to do just about whatever one wants. Hail to the chief.
We are Puppy!
Resistance is futile!
The things you do not tell us, are usually the clue to fixing the problem.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be older.
This is not what I expected
Well ya .... but that's what I'd expect to hear from Microsoft. Turns out that resistance is the path to freedom. But I getcha ... there's a certain inevitability to how Puppy does things.
but that's what I'd expect to hear from Microsoft
Micro$$ would never be that straight forward....they use other means to keep pace......like lack of choice and the "we know better so you WILL like this feature"
It really means once you've taken a Puppy for a walk in the park you'll see the point.
Or "can't put your arms around a Window" and a Window can't love you back. Slice an Apple and it turns brown.
@rayandrews :- Hi....and to the "kennels"!
I'll just say this much:-
More than owt else, our Pup's "versatile". You show me another system where you can split the different components up between various locations......base Puppy files in one place, 'save' in another, run 'portable' applications from completely outside the system......and yet when you boot it, it'll re-assemble itself into a coherent, completely functional system in RAM..! 
Can any 'mainstream' distro boast that degree of versatility? 
Answer:- Uh-uh. Nope! In fact, if you tried, they'd probably collapse into a sticky puddle of disjointed code in the bottom of your computer case...... (nah, not really.....but you get the idea!) 
In m'colleague's words: "We are Puppy! Resistance is futile!" 
Welcome to Puppyland.....and one of the most helpful, FUN Linux communities you'll find anywhere. And we do whatever it takes to KEEP it that way..... 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(luluc's comments about Puppy backups being "psychological", uhh.............I'd have to disagree with that. If you run Pups from individual sub-directories within a single partition, all you need to do is a literal copy/paste operation. You're not copying and trying to preserve a fully-set-up & configured file-system; all you're doing is to copy a handful of read-only squash files and a 'save', along with an init script and a kernel......because the re-assembly all takes place in RAM, courtesy of the init script. Takes very little to do that......and it definitely IS quick!
I have a script set-up to backup the entire 'kennels' periodically. I run it manually, once a week. I timed it the other night; it took just 8 minutes and 53 seconds to completely backup 11 Puppies......all automatically, INCLUDING gtk-dialog 'banners' that inform me when each Pup is successfully backed-up.
I'm quite happy with that!) 
EDIT:- Don't even need to time it manually now. Courtesy of a '3-liner' I found over at 'StackExchange : Superuser', the script will now time itself, and print out the duration to a gxmessage box when it's finished.....letting me know exactly how long the process takes each time. I prefer gxmessage for something like this, because it needs to be OK'd to clear it; if I set it going, then leave it to go and do something, it'll still be there when I come back.....
Mike. 
......and yet when you boot it, it'll re-assemble itself into a coherent, completely functional system in RAM..!
It says that 10GB of space is required
No, that's definitely wrong.
I have lots of additions that a normal Puppy doesn't have.
See Screenshot of my Puppy Directory.
My OS: ArtStudio64 - a Woof-CE built from Bionic 18.04
Running in RAM only, no save file, no save folder
www.youtube.com/@RainerSteffenHain
Here's the quote:
Building Puppy from Woof-CE.
There are a few prerequisites to building a woof-CE based Puppy:
a modern Puppy; one built from woof-CE is best.
the devx sfs module must be loaded. It contains some essentials like the git program.
a partition with no less than 10 GB of free space with a Linux filesystem
... seems I misunderstood, but it's misunderstandable.
rayandrews wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:05 amHere's the quote:
Building Puppy from Woof-CE.
There are a few prerequisites to building a woof-CE based Puppy:
a modern Puppy; one built from woof-CE is best.
the devx sfs module must be loaded. It contains some essentials like the git program.
a partition with no less than 10 GB of free space with a Linux filesystem
... seems I misunderstood, but it's misunderstandable.
This statement is referring to building a Puppy Linux system from scratch using the woof-CE build system. It means that around 10 G of free storage, on a partition or on a RAM disk,should be available to have the room to download many packages and components needed for the construction. Room to decompress and expand, compile packages and assemble the complete system, while squashing the results and creating an ISO file of a complete ready to run operating system.
This would be if you are using a local machine to run a woof-CE build of a Puppy Linux.
The Statement also recommends using a woof-CE constructed Puppy Linux to provide the environment to run the woof-CE build scripts.
This has little to do with downloading a ready to go Puppy Linux system ISO and using the already assembled and polished version. 
Ok, but to someone who doesn't yet know anything about Puppy it might be an idea to add a sentence to the effect of what you just said. It's clear if you already understand Puppy, but if you don't, it ain't. I'm not bitchin' just take it as feedback. The test of a doc is not that the expert thinks it's clear, but that the first time reader thinks it's clear.
Ok I'm actually *new* to puppy---meaning, tried it many many years ago [gave up, switched to Lubuntu then Xubuntu, left, [BOTH also rec for older computers, low resource usage]
only just recently trying some again.
FYI, recent Xubuntu ver (v22) ~ 2.5 GB ISO
10 GB is outrageous.
But if you read through, 1 of 1st things you see in several places is "puppy is SMALL"
[they say ~ 500 MB, but I've seen quite a few ISO now (7-2024) close to 1 GB]
A "frugal" (very basic) install usually 1-2x the size of the ISO. (more, if you start adding stuff or want bigger save file)
So even the "fat" puppies should comfortably in 2GB (RAM or "disk" space)
But if you start adding a lot---browsers, "office" stuff, etc they grow fast.
WHY USE PUPPY (close enuf 2 why better?)
[ok, keep in mind haven't used puppy much in YEARS, & i'm sure lots has changed ]
1) Utility. Used to be you could get Linux on a CD (~700 or less) then they got bigger, but they still called them CD versions lol! NOW, well, pretty hard to get any bootable OS on 2GB USB (I have EXTRA DVDs, but who has patience for them to boot?!?)
2) COMPATIBILITY. (OMG!) Win is HORRIBLE at this! What if say, I want to able to make something (USB?) on more modern computer, than will then be used on older computer (I hear stuff like this a lot w Linux versions!)
3) size (uh, ya, if puppies were all 10GB+, I would NOT be here!]
4) (is this utility?) 2nd OS is ALWAYS handy! nothing boots? need separate (partition/drive, depends on program) to check/troubleshoot/BACK etc ROOT? Windows? etc.
[I have a 2GB sys rescue use a lot, but looking for good puppy replacement. (maybe something w XFCE?)]
5) FAST! Seriously, Think about it: What's FASTER: hyper compact car, or a bloated 50 ton tank?!? SMALLER space (size) = faster access, smaller RAM use = boots faster, & again, faster access.
So many modern things (OMG "UNITY" LOL) are BLOATWARE heavy, take a otherwise normal hardware, & make it look like a 486!
6) Portable (*ONLY* possible b/c of above. "normal" 30+ GB OS are NOT portable (maybe on 64 GB flash USB---but never seen one. )
I'm sure I missed some. (build your OWN PERSONALIZED OS? never done it before, but looks possible w puppy!)
If any of those sounds interesting, take home a puppy (or 2?) today.
I haven't read all the replies. So this may duplicate some:
1) Although some may object to my reasoning, Puppys can be run in such a way as to be inherently secure. Both Bookworm and F96 include an application: nicOS-Utility-Suite. One of its modules enables the User to create or modify either a ydrv.sfs or adrv.sfs, or both to include all the additional applications, settings and customizations you've installed. Both adrv.sfses and ydrv.sfses are READ-ONLY. On boot-up they are copied into RAM. The result is that you no longer need a SaveFile/Folder. If you then operate under Pupmode 5 (pfix=ram) after boot-up from a USB-Key you can unplug the Key. Hard to contaminate an operating system which isn't there. If booted from a hard-drive, the hard-drive is dismounted after boot-up. That still presents an obstacle to hackers. Things downloaded intentionally or inadvertantly will only exist in RAM and be wiped wiped on reboot/shutdown unless you first mount a hard-drive and specifically choose the files you want to keep.
2) You will always have a functioning operating system. As others have mentioned all a Puppy needs is its own folder. It's easy to add a second Puppy or a second instance of the same Puppy. Puppys are modularly built. Their kernels, drivers (complied against that each specific kernel) and firmware are separate modules. Upgrading or downgrading kernels will never leave you with a broken operating system such that you can't access your computer. "Swapping kernels" takes less than 5 minute, excluding download-time.
3) Puppys devs have provided a very long list of SFSes and Portables; and newer Puppys can make use of many AppImages OOTB. A new version of an application so packaged does not over-write the old. If there's a problem you can revert to using the old until the new version is fixed.
4) Puppys analog to the admirable application known as 'time-shift' is to simply make a backup of your current SaveFile/Folder as and when you feel the need, Takes about a minute. You need only keep the last good version.
5) Puppys promote experimentation. Even if you already have a SaveFile/Folder you can boot 'pfix=ram'. Puppy will boot without using that SaveFile/Folder. You can create a new one or choose to duplicate [Right-Click the SaveFile/Folder and select Duplicate from the pop-up menu giving the 'duplicate' a different ending, e.g. -0725, or -test or -video]. On the next bootup you will be offered a choice of which SaveFile/Folder to use. Delete and add to your heart's content. When you're satisfied you can delete any SaveFile/Folder you don't want; or if you only want to avoid it being offered on bootup rename it: e.g. dpupbw64-save-test >0dpupbw64-save-test; colored for clarification only.
Wow, that's a lot!!! It's amazing. I understand that making sfs prevents corruption, as an advantage.
But in understanding what you do, I take it that one puppy is using all of this.
With all the sfs's, do the sfs's contain just one app? Or do they contain many?
Do you just drop them into the puppy folder and they are automatically used?
Are you making an sfs for any new app you add?
How do you make the sfs files?
Thanks
Thanks gentlemen. Next time I'm in the mood to start playing with OS's I'll be giving Puppy a go for sure.
Word of caution: sometimes this is wrong. Some of the smaller Puppy releases are xz-compressed so they're smaller on disk and occupy less RAM when copied to RAM, but applications are much slower to start and CPU consumption is generally higher compared to a bigger Puppy that use something else (xz is the slowest to decompress among algorithms currently supported by squashfs).
In addition, many small Puppy releases have fewer drivers. In those without video decoding drivers (the vast majority of Puppy release), which are very big, online videos are decoded on the CPU. This is slower, consumes more energy and produces more heat, while the GPU is unused.
More often than not you can get a minimal installation of a 'big' distro like Debian or Arch to provide the same feature set as Puppy, but with lower CPU and RAM footprint, while only disk usage is higher.
If you're unsure whether or not Puppy's size results in lower resource usage (except lower disk usage, which is obvious), measure. The automatic assumption that it must be smaller is often wrong. If you have plenty of disk space but a slow CPU, maybe you're optimizing for the wrong thing when you search for a small distro.
dimkr wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 3:01 pmWord of caution: sometimes this is wrong. Some of the smaller Puppy releases are xz-compressed so they're smaller on disk and occupy less RAM when copied to RAM, but applications are much slower to start and CPU consumption is generally higher compared to a bigger Puppy that use something else (xz is the slowest to decompress among algorithms currently supported by squashfs).
In addition, many small Puppy releases have fewer drivers. In those without video decoding drivers (the vast majority of Puppy release), which are very big, online videos are decoded on the CPU. This is slower, consumes more energy and produces more heat, while the GPU is unused.
More often than not you can get a minimal installation of a 'big' distro like Debian or Arch to provide the same feature set as Puppy, but with lower CPU and RAM footprint, while only disk usage is higher.
If you're unsure whether or not Puppy's size results in lower resource usage (except lower disk usage, which is obvious), measure. The automatic assumption that it must be smaller is often wrong. If you have plenty of disk space but a slow CPU, maybe you're optimizing for the wrong thing when you search for a small distro.
very well said
JusGellin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 1:57 pmWow, that's a lot!!! It's amazing. I understand that making sfs prevents corruption, as an advantage.
But in understanding what you do, I take it that one puppy is using all of this.
With all the sfs's, do the sfs's contain just one app? Or do they contain many?
Do you just drop them into the puppy folder and they are automatically used?
Are you making an sfs for any new app you add?
How do you make the sfs files?Thanks
Puppys can make use of many SFSes at the same time, loaded and unloaded on-the-fly as and when needed or no longer needed. [A loaded SFS whose application(s) have not been opened uses little RAM; while an unloaded SFS uses none.] But you can also combine applications into suites, specifically naming your SFS so that you'll know what applications they contain: e.g. Frequent.sfs might contain LibreOffice and Gimp; Video.SFS might contain all your applications relating to video creation.
RSH has published an application known as PaDS, viewtopic.php?p=6355&sid=2fff13f3ea30c8 ... 2e4e#p6355. Read that thread and perhaps this one for some additional insight, https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=81511. But basically using the latest, PaDS 1.1.7 what you do is place all the FUNCTIONAL debs, pets, SFS --see noted links for other package types-- into a specifically named folder --e.g. VideoApps4Bookworm-- Right-Click the folder, fill-out the GUI and an SFS with the name of your folder --e.g. VideoApps4Bookworm.sfs-- will be created at /root. Caveat, move it out of /root before loading/testing: If tested there it will be deleted when closed.
I've used PaDS to create an SFS with as many as 80 debs in the 'work folder'. [Actually, my main use of PaDS is just that: combine the debs of an application rather than install it. Uninstalling 80 debs is a PITA. Once an SFS is created you can Right-Click it, Select View, copy its contents into a name folder, Right-Click the folder and select dir2pet from the pop-up menu. Or restructure the now properly deployed files to create a portable App].
Before opening/testing an SFS I Right-Click it to view contents. On occasion an SFS will not be successfully created because one of the included pets was not created properly. When a pet is created it will include a file name pet.specs. If a Dev updates that pet but fails to delete the old pet.specs file before doing so, the old pet.specs file will be used. This doesn't create a problem when installing the updated pet. But PaDS references that file, finds the error and can't deconstruct the pet in order to include its files in the SFS. Viewing the SFS's contents will show which pet caused the problem. You can deconstruct that pet, delete the pet.specs file and dir2pet to recreate it; substitute the corrected version in your work folder and re-run PaDS.
I won't go into some of the problems and solutions you can run into when you try to include applications not specifically created for you puppy. Don't hesitate to ask if and when you do. And while I prefer using portable applications as such, you may want to know that you can create an SFS (and later include it in PaDS's work folder) containing a portable. Ask how if you're interested.
Original creation of an SFS: Using Puppy Package Manager rather than 'Automatic Install' select 'Download packages No Install'. PPM's configuration file enables you to choose the download location. The default is /root. But I create a folder -- /root/more-- to avoid the mess that can create. Using Apt/Synaptic packages are downloaded to (I think) /var/cache/apt/archives. Double-check that guess as you'll want to delete any packages at that location before starting so that the packages from 'other' applications don't get mixed in. After download copy the 'new arrivals' to your PaDS work folder. Synaptic offers the choice of downloading but not installing. Haven't used it. On the only instance I used Synaptic to obtain the 'source' files what I did was (a) delete old packages from /var/packages?; (b) install the application; (c) move the new arrivals in /var/cache/apt/archives? to my work-folder somewhere on /mnt/home; then reboot without executing a Save. On reboot 'changes are wiped'. So /var/cache/apt/archives? contained only those files it had before step (a)
Regarding SFS usage: an SFS can be loaded from anywhere: Right-Click>SFS_Load. Usually best located on your Home partition as that is automatically mounted on boot-up. If you SFS_Load an SFS and execute a Save, that condition is preserved: that SFS will be loaded on your next boot-up and until you unload it and execute another Save.
JusGellin (Numbering by me,RSH) wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 1:57 pm1. But in understanding what you do, I take it that one puppy is using all of this.
2. With all the sfs's, do the sfs's contain just one app? Or do they contain many?
3. Do you just drop them into the puppy folder and they are automatically used?
4. Are you making an sfs for any new app you add?
5. How do you make the sfs files?
1. Yes, one Puppy is using all of this. Usually I create one .sfs file only for one single Puppy.
2. Yes, .sfs files like e.g. for KdenLive, Gimp, Firefox etc. is one app per .sfs file. Of course OpenOffice contains all the related programs like write, calc etc.
3. All the .sfs files for programs are in directory Module. Currently there's 57 of them - see screenshot.
4. The .sfs files seeing in my previous screenshot are additional .sfs files to the system. They contain many programs. E.g. the mdrv_ArtStudio64_1.0.0.sfs contains all music programs that are not installed into the base .sfs (nempup_ArtStudio64_1.0.0.sfs). They are loaded automatically at boot like the zdrv.sfs of Puppy is loaded. To have this working I have a heavily modified init script in initrd.gz plus heavily modified sfs_load script (originally made by shinobar). The modification of sfs_load was needed for two reasons.
A) to exclude the additional system .sfs files from the sfs_load list to unload .sfs files
B) to make sfs_load able to load .sfs files from my preferred location (Directory Module) without any GUI showing up in front and without to copy .sfs files to another location before loading. Usually it asks to do so etc.pp.
The .sfs files in directory Module are loaded when I'm clicking e.g. Gimp in menu. There's some RunScripts I created which can load a .sfs file and execute its program after loading immediately. So, it works the same way as for installed programs. The program I'm using to create these RunScripts is named SFS-PLUS. There's some different versions on both of the forums, but I'm not up to date with that.
5. This is already described above by @mikeslr. The only difference is that I have an extended version of PaDS (X-PaDS) locally in use. This offers to me a more comfortable work and use.
My OS: ArtStudio64 - a Woof-CE built from Bionic 18.04
Running in RAM only, no save file, no save folder
www.youtube.com/@RainerSteffenHain
Thanks @RSH and @mikeslr for your responses to my questions.
I wanted to try doing some of this by doing what you @mikeslr suggested above as suggestion #1:
mikeslr wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 12:43 am1) .... Puppys can be run in such a way as to be inherently secure. Both Bookworm and F96 include an application: nicOS-Utility-Suite. One of its modules enables the User to create or modify either a ydrv.sfs or adrv.sfs, or both to include all the additional applications, settings and customizations you've installed. Both adrv.sfses and ydrv.sfses are READ-ONLY. On boot-up they are copied into RAM. The result is that you no longer need a SaveFile/Folder. If you then operate under Pupmode 5 (pfix=ram) after boot-up from a USB-Key you can unplug the Key. Hard to contaminate an operating system which isn't there. If booted from a hard-drive, the hard-drive is dismounted after boot-up. That still presents an obstacle to hackers. Things downloaded intentionally or inadvertantly will only exist in RAM and be wiped wiped on reboot/shutdown unless you first mount a hard-drive and specifically choose the files you want to keep.
That looks like a great example for me to learn to do this.
I made a frugal install to a USB stick. Then I copied a save folder from my main install of BookwormPup that had some installs of Calibre, Thunderbird and just my general use of things. It worked fine with this.
From this I tried to make an sfs file as ydrv, which wasn't used. I used nicOS-Utility-Suite to make this. It made a ydrv file, but I'm not sure it really has anything from my pup save.
I set the USB stick for pfix=ram and could see that it was loaded in memory, but I don't see results like it had before. So that's where I am right now. I'll look further to see if I can figure what is the problem.
Thanks again for giving me a view for what can be done.
dimkr wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 3:01 pmWord of caution: sometimes this is wrong. Some of the smaller Puppy releases are xz-compressed so they're smaller on disk and occupy less RAM when copied to RAM, but applications are much slower to start and CPU consumption is generally higher compared to a bigger Puppy that use something else (xz is the slowest to decompress among algorithms currently supported by squashfs).
In addition, many small Puppy releases have fewer drivers. In those without video decoding drivers (the vast majority of Puppy release), which are very big, online videos are decoded on the CPU. This is slower, consumes more energy and produces more heat, while the GPU is unused.
More often than not you can get a minimal installation of a 'big' distro like Debian or Arch to provide the same feature set as Puppy, but with lower CPU and RAM footprint, while only disk usage is higher.
If you're unsure whether or not Puppy's size results in lower resource usage (except lower disk usage, which is obvious), measure. The automatic assumption that it must be smaller is often wrong. If you have plenty of disk space but a slow CPU, maybe you're optimizing for the wrong thing when you search for a small distro.
The post was about puppy being faster/better; Obviously (how many?!?) 50+ versions/puppyies, some are better than others, in different ways.
Linix in general (not just puppies) can have a lot of problems w NVIDIA drivers;
There's no magic bullet; Many "puppies" were made I think, b/c someone wanted something that would do something better/different than the current ones.
No "1 size fits all" ( or we wouldn't have Linux/Win/Mac/etc)
How is Puppy better? Here's my experience.
(1) The genius of MS-Windows is to put a powerful OS and applications (MS-Office etc) into a PC, but requiring only minimal technical knowledge. At least that was the situation when I jumped ship and climbed aboard the Puppy bus. I had some technical knowledge before I got and installed Puppy; I needed every bit of that to understand the process of partitioning, formatting and installing my first 32-bit version of Puppy Linux. This 'easy-to-use' aspect of Windows comes at a double cost. The first - comes from your hip pocket. The second comes from Microsoft's need to obscure the detail of a their good OS. In contrast to that, every bit of the Puppy Linux file system is open to the careless gaze of "the great unwashed". Windows is inscrutable. Well, almost. There is a cost to both Windows and Linux. The "we are all things to all men" approach requires a LOT more code. More code -> more bugs. Linux is inherently more reliable, for that reason. But there is a cost The minimalist approach in Puppy means you will have to do some work yourself. Take your pick. You can have one or the other, but never both.
(2) I have used Puppy for about 7 years now - it's wonderfully reliable. I guess it's no more reliable than other versions of Linux, but that is only a guess. I know only Puppy Linux. EXCEPTION. Puppy (or 'me') does not have an anti-virus program. I guess that's an advantage.
(3) A little work is required, occasionally. I can't say anything about Windows after XP. (Yes, XP). Comparing that with uPupBB or Fossa-64, I find that Puppy is more reliable. Not every bug has been removed. Some years ago I tried to install uPupBB-32 on a Dell 8600 laptop. Wouldn't boot. Tap, tap, tap on the keyboard. Look! BigPup suggested a small addition to the boot menu. Joy! After that Puppy ran well enough on a Pentium with 2GiB of RAM to watch YouTube videos. A little slow downloading the beginning of a video; after that - all good.
(4) One great advantage of Puppy Linux is the flexibility in the booting process. If/when your PC/Laptop/Notebook (whether Windows or Puppy) crashes a 'backup' thumb drive will see you up and running again. (Won't do that if your PC has a serious hardware fault!) Some months ago my main PC fell over. Died completely. Opened the case. Cleaned the edge connector of the memory cards. Plugged in (and booted from) a thumb-drive. Yay! This process a no-brainer. After that Puppy booted reliably from the original HDD. Puppy gets mal-functioning hardware running. You just can't do that with Windows. This reliability brings its own problem - a tendency to not back up often enough.
(50 Now I want to write about 'the forum'. No - not the forum in Ancient Rome. I'm writing about the Puppy Linux Forum. When I installed Puppy Linux I knew nothing about the C language. With the help of the forum and GitHub I learnt C well enought to compile and run a 6809 assembler, debugger and emulator. Well, I am still a novice, but I learned enough about C to find a bug in the assembler source code. Tens of thousands of other people have done something like this - but I want to say the Puppy forum is a great place to get help about non-Puppy aspects of computing. With Puppy the forum is free! Bonus!
That's my experience with Puppy Linux.
That's why I think it's better.
Plus (a big plus), the forum has @BigPup .
There aint no such a-thingy as Big-Window-Panes. No sir! Woof!
собака --> это Русский --> a dog
"c" -- say "s" - as in "see" or "scent" or "sob".
