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

[jp734]

I just tried DDG and Google. Both of them gave me the same link to the announcement. Using Firefox browser (though I don't think the browser would make a difference)

[dimkr]

The bigger problem is probably the difference between this announcement page and what puppylinux.com says, not the discoverability of the announcement page.

Somebody who doesn't know who controls puppylinux.com, doen't know who built the thing that was announced, doesn't know who made the announcement and doesn't know who leads the project (both in terms of recognition by users and control over resources like git repos) might get confused and spend their time on requests from more organized distros that have clear websites with a single, recognized and reputable lead developer, where the information is tidy and easy to verify.

[williwaw]

The bigger problem is.....

Leaving Google behind in this discussion (and Distrowatch too), what do you think the big picture should look like?

[dimkr]

The bigger problem is.....

Leaving Google behind in this discussion (and Distrowatch too), what do you think the big picture should look like?

1. Moving all development to one place, preferably one of the git hosting platforms so users and sites like distrowatch can get notifications about new releases and development activity, the same way it's done for other projects
2. A simple website that explains what the distro is, what makes it special, has a download/donate page for the latest release, links to the place where development is happening and contains a list of personnel and their responsibilities (for example, the project lead and the webmaster); outdated and irrelevant information like old releases or old screenshots not in the front page

[williwaw]

, the same way it's done for other projects
2. A simple website that explains what the distro is, what makes it special, has a download/donate page for the latest release, links to the place where development is happening and contains a list of personnel and their responsibilities (for example, the project lead and the webmaster); outdated and irrelevant information like old releases or old screenshots not in the front page

I agree that puppy web presentation has always (well, since Barry stepped down) not appeared to be
very well organized and confusing.

The devil is in the details tho, someone has to lead the organization process.

[rockedge]

I will repeat that there is already a web site page that is perfectly acceptable. Right here -> https://bwpup.puppylinux.com/

Just sitting there doing nothing...though I did make it when there was discussion on going but it seems to have been lost to no interest.

Screenshot(26).jpg (41.32 KiB) Viewed 1853 times

Then there is another one...........open a search engine in a browser and try a search query "F96-CE"

[dimkr]

@rockedge IMO it's much better than the current puppylinux.com.

However, a project with multiple websites that promote different releases, random version numbers ('jump' from 9.5 to 22.12 to 10.0.7), a new release that isn't featured in its homepage (puppylinux.com was updated after DW was contacted) and unclear 'ownership' (different lead developer for every version) or roadmap (base distro changes in every release, features appear and disappear randomly) just looks like a giant mess to somebody who tries to manage a list of distros and their history. It doesn't look and act like a single distro, and it's too much time to understand what is going on.

[pp4mnklinux]

I fully agree with @dimkr.

It's my personal oppinion, of course, but it is said: "if people can't easily find u, you don't exist".

Newbies gonna search the term "linux". I'm not going to start talking abot SEO but the best website with the best distro with no SEO is (IMO) the problem.

@rockedge sites are much more better than the original @BarryK puppy linux site, but Barry's one have got some SEO characteristics
you can't achive (@williwaw mentioned some key points)

"Family of distribution", "multiple distros" ...it's a mess

If u want to ask me some SPECIFIC question about this, I'll try to answer.

Have a nice day.

[wiak]

Family of distribution", "multiple distros" ...it's a mess

For obvious, I think, reasons, I think this is an asset. Too bad that Distrowatch was never set up to handle such versatility as that provided via this new forum that carries and honours the legacy that is Puppy Linux itself.

However, it was in fact Puppy Linux and the eventual release of woof-CE that promoted, and indeed boasted, about its "multiple distros" abilities, including the encouragement (and why not) or hundreds and more remastered variants. Maybe all remastered Puppy Linux distros is indeed a problem and these should never be promoted? Other non-Puppy distros are a matter for their own designers. This is just a discussion forum and not the development sites.

dimkr, by the way, does not 'remaster' any old Puppy Linux variant as far as I know. I gather he faithfully uses his own fork of his much changed woof-CE, so I doubt you really 'fully agree' with his approach and reaction towards remastered Pups. The 'issue' with dimkr's creation is that he specifically states that it is not to be regarded as Puppy Linux, per se, and thus cannot be featured as the official Puppy Linux distro on Distrowatch (Vanilla Dpup is featured there on its own behalf as far as I know). If Puppy Linux has an official build system that can produce a final product then it does seem sensible that only that one (or more?) is the one notified to Distrowatch, but seems like all current Puppy DIstros are actually remastered variants, but with peebee's variants being closest to having been produced by Puppy Linux declared as 'official' build system. Certainly a remaster of an otherwise build system produced Pup doesn't feel like it should represent Puppy Linux as the official release in my view. Perhaps the original creator of Puppy, being BarryK, needs to make a decision since his original distro has no 'leader' acting on its behalf any more. If he says any remaster can be used, then that would be the decision surely?

The idea that any other distro, whose designers state categorically are not 'Puppy Linux', should be put forward as an alternative 'new' Puppy Linux is a load of nonsense in my view, and I doubt any designer/creator team of any other distro has any interest or would allow such use. Puppy has to survive on its own merits and future development procedures and why not??? Distros come and distros go - I hope Puppy survives long into the next decade, but that's up to others to take interest in its development and self-promotion.

[retiredt00]

a project with multiple websites that promote different releases, random version numbers ('jump' from 9.5 to 22.12 to 10.0.7), a new release that isn't featured in its homepage (puppylinux.com was updated after DW was contacted) and unclear 'ownership' (different lead developer for every version) or roadmap (base distro changes in every release, features appear and disappear randomly) just looks like a giant mess to somebody who tries to manage a list of distros and their history.

Absolutely correct!!!
What I find even more worrisome than the distrowatch conundrum is how the idea that "the forum will dictate what puppylinux is and where it is going" may lead to its final demise.
In the past distributions have been abandoned, transformed, split etc based on disagreements among developers.
Puppylinux maybe the first one where the users in spite of their best intentions, will manage to bring it down!
Looks like that the "let a hundred flowers blossom" forum movement, as the original may be destined to fail.

[peebee]

but seems like all current Puppy DIstros are actually remastered variants

Not true - S15Pup64 & S14Pup32 & BookwormPup32 & BionicPup32 are all Github Actions Woof-CE builds. A build of BookwormPup64 is possible on Github Actions but the current released build is a local Woof-CE build.

See: https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... oof-distro

Only F96-CE_4 from those mentioned on https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/ is a remaster.

[Jasper]

Why is VoidPup not included?

[wiak]

but seems like all current Puppy DIstros are actually remastered variants

Not true - S15Pup64 & S14Pup32 & BookwormPup32 & BionicPup32 are all Github Actions Woof-CE builds. A build of BookwormPup64 is possible on Github Actions but the current released build is a local Woof-CE build.

See: https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... oof-distro

Only F96-CE_4 from those mentioned on https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/ is a remaster.

Well, there you go, spoilt for build choice then. All that would seem missing is someone or ones able to make decisions for now or future. Ship without a captain.

[rockedge]

Ship without a captain.

We all know that the Flying Dutchman always must have a Captain................

[wiak]

Don't understand any of that! What are the "differences" (from a user's perspective) that concern you????

They don't concern me because I don't use BookwormPup32. But they should concern those who want to build something based on BookwormPup64, or build a TrixiePup64 when the day comes. If these differences don't go into woof-CE, they will be lost to time like the modifications FossaPup64 (and those before it) had.

BWP64 as released is a local "enhanced" rebuild of the Github published BWP64.

It isn't, according to its /var/packages.

BWP32 is a Github build using stock Woof-CE and therefore contains all the changes to woof-code in https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... 99a4dc37b2..

... and this commit contains only some of the "enhancements".

I give up, I'll just let my PRs rot in https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/woof-CE/pulls and won't submit others. If you, as the only active woof-CE member, don't care about feeding woof-CE with the code from the Puppy release featured in puppylinux.com and distrowatch, nobody should care. I'll just continue development in my fork and won't try to get any improvements or fixes merged into upstream woof-CE.

Good to hear that most all is well. Sorry... I dont follow Puppy dev matters at all closely. Just saw posts like the above and others complaining now and then that their official woof-CE build attempts didnt work very satisfactorily. Not sure what above is about then. Just mud stirring or nothing, so best that now made clear. A Puppy leader or leading group of devs does seem to be a vacuum sort of get things done issue though. Who puts their hand(s)'up to take that on (and face the criticism such roles inevitably involve)? Surely someone amongst the more serious Puppy devs has to do it though?

[peebee]

Why is VoidPup not included?

It is not on https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/ and has never been considered an "official" pup... and as Void is a rolling release it isn't appropriate to do so.

VoidPup64 & VoidPup32 are however occasional snap-shot Github Actions Woof-CE builds.

[dimkr]

Family of distribution", "multiple distros" ...it's a mess

For obvious, I think, reasons, I think this is an asset. Too bad that Distrowatch was never set up to handle such versatility

It can handle this 'versatility' if each developer of a Puppy variant of derivative that wants to be represented there submits their distro so it has its own page with its own website, version history, description and screenshots.

If this happens, the 'official or not' debate becomes irrelevant because nothing is 'official', and everyone is free to develop whatever they want with their own methods.

[wiak]

Family of distribution", "multiple distros" ...it's a mess

For obvious, I think, reasons, I think this is an asset. Too bad that Distrowatch was never set up to handle such versatility

It can handle this 'versatility' if each developer of a Puppy variant of derivative that wants to be represented there submits their distro so it has its own page with its own website, version history, description and screenshots.

If this happens, the 'official or not' debate becomes irrelevant because nothing is 'official', and everyone is free to develop whatever they want with their own methods.

Unfortunately, we can't really help with Puppy Linux itself in the current Kennel Linux section. I doubt if anyone could analyse, for example, KLV-Hyperland, and show it to be in any way a derivative of Puppy Linux (such a dubious claim would be more than stretching reality a bit). It isn't, despite, perhaps, occasionally including some bash utility that first came into existence in Puppy, but... even then, snapmergepuppy is a puppy utility in name only - it is a version for overlayfs use developed on DebianDog some years after the ealiest FirstRib-based distros appeared over five years ago using overlayfs rather than ever using aufs.

The earlier FirsrRib-based distro didn't I think include any old forum utilities at all since I wasn't using the available w_changes=RAM2 save on demand mode anyway back then - preferring direct writes for my family's at that time business-related usage (and I was too busy and LAZY to work on that back then... so thanks to fredx181 of DebianDog fame for his overlayfs snapmergepuppy util that he modified specially for FirstRib-based distro usage, and continues to maintain that).

It would be a bit sad for Puppy as a distro in its own right if anyone felt the need to try and prove other work was a 'derivative', when it isn't, but maybe it is understandable that a few may claim such nonsense, and it doesn't matter.

Puppy Linux doesn't (or shouldn't) need other distro designs (as another distincly different example: DebianDog) to justify itself in the future - it has a long legacy of its own - just doesn't have anyone leading its development. Nevertheless, the good thing in practice is that Puppy is still "out there" (despite, perhaps irrelevant, lower Distrowatch interest) and has some nice current offerings anyway. Marketing it, in the chaos of no identified leadership, isn't very easy I'd think though and especially since some claim its long-declared build system woof-CE is working fine and others clearly say otherwise. I'm just curious, who, if anyone, is ever going to take management over the project or be appointed to that role - seems necessary to me if only to avoid such thread discussions.

[rockedge]

It can handle this 'versatility'

If we couldn't we'd be Windows and iOSx users

If this happens, the 'official or not' debate becomes irrelevant because nothing is 'official', and everyone is free to develop whatever they want with their own methods.

As well said time and time again:

it's a Do-acracy.

The entire Puppy Linux - DebianDog - Kennel Linux - Firstrib world hangs on private devotion and a need to share the results. Sometimes to get that "good feel" moment when something works as expected, a sense of solving a problem, fulfilling a dream.........giving a gift....helping someone with knowledge....teaching is a thing......

[rockedge]

We must face the fact....Puppy Linux and the world around it has surpassed the relevance of Distrowatch.

Not important really for us. What we have approached is the comparison of a particle accelerator to a slingshot.

Think BIG. @wiak is right, Puppy Linux still is out there and it still gets reviews and different variants are being downloaded........

Ever see the movie "Field of Dreams"?

If you build it, they will come........

[wiak]

There has always been a great deal of 'sharing' from the DebianDog, FirstRib/KL areas to other distros on the forum and especially to Puppy. Don't remember many (any?) Puppy Linux devs provided anything specially for FirstRib/KL (or DebianDog for that matter) except for a very few that jumped ship to, for example, DebianDog. There never were many very experienced devs anyway, but less now than ever in Puppy Land overall it seems. Let's hope that changes, which always needed change of attitudes towards more sharing rather than any ridiculous separation to 'protect' what is 'pure' in the mind of some Puritans (!!!!).

Anyway, times and computer resources have changed. Reasons for small distro creation are not exactly the same any more, are they??? And KL distros are only sometimes about small distro creations anyway - interesting and useful to still do, but they are all much bigger now. Problem is that many users seem to have moved on to outside distros that do most all of what they may want anyway and without user intervention or required tweaks or efforts. The outside Linux world cares nothing, I'm sure, about small forum in-fighting. The forum, as a forum, continues to be a useful, interesting (perhaps increasingly interesting) place it seems to me however, and we should focus on that key quality of the place.

Most distros out there are boring compared to what is devised (by which I mean focussed on discussion-wise) here.

[rockedge]

Some of these distro's on this forum do what they do equal too or better than most operating systems that the public can get anywhere on this planet.

I will put KLV-Spectr-RT up against any distro available in the world right now for music production and LIVE performances.

[BologneChe]

Some of these distro's on this forum do what they do equal too or better than most operating systems that the public can get anywhere on this planet.

I will put KLV-Spectr-RT up against any distro available in the world right now for music production and LIVE performances.

With all due respect, I think your statement is "pompous". Some respect for developers other than Puppy is in order.

[wiak]

Some of these distro's on this forum do what they do equal too or better than most operating systems that the public can get anywhere on this planet.

I will put KLV-Spectr-RT up against any distro available in the world right now for music production and LIVE performances.

With all due respect, I think your statement is "pompous". Some respect for developers other than Puppy is in order.

All distro development work is important. KLV-Spectr-RT isn't Puppy but nevertheless maybe we are often over-the-top in our sometimes surely zealous comments about distros focussed on here. I love Linux Mint, for example - but no one here has large enough dev team to rival such distros overall (I don't try to, but use their underlying root filesystems instead..., but in frugal install arrangements which utilize FR/KL distro developments - if you can't beat them, join them).

[dimkr]

All distro development work is important.

If so, no distro here should be be promoted over others, described as 'official' and featured in distrowatch as a new 'Puppy Linux' release: all distros developed here should be given equal representation under the Distributions category, without Mainline Puppy Linux Distros, Kennel Linux Distros and Puppy Derivatives categories.

[fredx181]

There has always been a great deal of 'sharing' from the DebianDog, FirstRib/KL areas to other distros on the forum and especially to Puppy. Don't remember many (any?) Puppy Linux devs provided anything specially for FirstRib/KL (or DebianDog for that matter) except for a very few that jumped ship to, for example, DebianDog. There never were many very experienced devs anyway, but less now than ever in Puppy Land overall it seems. Let's hope that changes, which always needed change of attitudes towards more sharing rather than any ridiculous separation to 'protect' what is 'pure' in the mind of some Puritans (!!!!).

I see what you mean, but reality is that FirstRib/KL (or DebianDog) are so much different from traditional Puppy, so that IMO it's logical that Puppy devs didn't provide anything for these distros.
(why should they, probably busy enough with their own development)
The other way around too, btw, as I ('DebianDog dev') didn't provide anything to WOOF-CE.
I think it has a downside that there's so much different development going on in this forum, there cannot be "one size fits all" unfortunately.

[dimkr]

there cannot be "one size fits all" unfortunately.

And this is why the discussion about a new 'Puppy Linux' release is a waste of time. It's not a single project with single development team and a single website that shows nothing but correct and relevant information, and it can't be such a project. The problem is not distrowatch: you can't blame them for not accepting requests to replace 'Puppy Linux 22.12' by one developer with 'Puppy Linux 10.0.7' by another developer, when puppylinux.com doesn't say anything about this and contains a list of developers from 2015 or whatever.

[rockedge]

....... Some respect for developers other than Puppy is in order.

One of the main reasons these forums and the infrastructure exist

[BologneChe]

One of the main reasons these forums and the infrastructure exist.

And that doesn't take away from your "pompous" statement
No hard feelings!

[wiak]

I see what you mean, but reality is that FirstRib/KL (or DebianDog) are so much different from traditional Puppy, so that IMO it's logical that Puppy devs didn't provide anything for these distros.

Ok, I see now that snapmergepuupy wasn't the best example I could have given. I was really talking about utility apps in general. I wasnt referring to build system inclusion requests at all. For example, in my case, I wrote and maintained Precord, which actually was included in some Pups tho never I think included in woof-CE skeleton, all of which is fine to me. I wrote variants of that specially so they could optionally be used, and work, in various other distros here. The same applies to wex screencapture audio/video utility. Despite no longer myself using Puppy really, I produced and maintained special releases of wex for Puppy users too. Sometimes that takes a lot of extra time and work, but I am a member of this overall forum community. I had and have no issue with Puppy distro devs choosing to install Qt for the likes of big but polished ScreenRecorder or whatever it is called. Certainly no demand from me tor woof-CE inclusion of anything made by me ever, though did wonder how the awful IMO, but impressive in a way, Pmusic was seemingly permanently occupying woof-CE sleleton code position, but fine if others love it Pmusic is certainly a (kind of dubious) work of art. No, I'd personally prefer not to see any special Pmusic variant made for KL. Nevertheless it is the good thought or intention that counts; isn't it?