Should there be forums for fatdog64 and tazpup, in the dog house section?

[s243a]

Should their be forums for fatdog64 and tazpup, in the dog house section? Also if I click on the dog house section, I don't see a general area to post. To post I have to click on one of the sub forums.

[rockedge]

Ahhh yes! I missed turning on the posts in the Dog section. I agree Fatdog64 and tazPup could have sections as well

[mikewalsh]

I'll say one thing here.

I agree, fans of any particular Puplet/derivative/whatever would of course like to see more space devoted to their particular 'favourite'. But let's be realistic about this; if that concession were to be extended to every single Puppy variant out there, you would immediately make the Forum so big it would very quickly become unwieldy.

If we're going to do something along those lines, we need to demarcate where those Puppy sub-divisions will be formed. And not go silly with it. And I would think the fairest way would be to consult the community by way of a poll, or something like that..?

The 'Dogs' are a well-populated sub-breed of Puppy. They probably do deserve their own 'section'.

The same, I would think, goes for FatDog.

But what makes Tazpup any more 'worthy' of being singled-out for special attention than, say, WeeDog? Or Puli? Or Quirky?

I don't expect Tazpup fans to see my point at all, but.....at least it's been made.


Mike.

[rockedge]

I sort of grouped WeeDog in with the Linux Dogs and Quirky can live within EasyOS since Quirky is in it's DNA

Corepup, Tinycore variants for example, can work within Operating Systems. TazPUP though is a Slitaz based hybrid.

Puli is a Puppy Linux set up for increased security I believe.

WeeDog is mainly Void Linux but can be built using Ubuntu or Debian very much like the Dog's can be based on various main distros

[darry19662018]

Just joined up many thanks Rockedge. Interesting that email on my gmail.com in spam.

Anyway glad to be at this forum.

[rockedge]

Interesting that email on my gmail.com in spam.

It seems that the training of the junk/spam mail filters on gmail can vary from user to user. Mark it as not junk and use the https URL may make a difference.

Glad though it worked!

[darry19662018]

Cheers mate.

[mikewalsh]

Just joined up many thanks Rockedge. Interesting that email on my gmail.com in spam.

Anyway glad to be at this forum.

@ Darry:-

Rockedge is probably right about making sure to use the https URL.....and it kinda 'gels' with what WiZ was saying in the other thread about GMail 'bouncing' requests made via plain old http. Like most of us, I'm certain you're aware of just how stupid Google are going with all this security stuff this last year or so. Seems like every other week they're introducing yet ANOTHER security measure...

When will it end? Your guess is as good as mine, mate....

--------------------

@ rockedge:-

Just out of curiosity, have you made any other alterations to how the site works? I'm only asking because in Bionicpup64, where I am now, every time I try to use the arrow keys in the editor, it keeps bringing mtPaint up.....and then the arrow keys go unresponsive..!


Mike.

[rockedge]

Strange ...... about the arrow keys. I am posting this in WeeDog64 using the latest version of firefox and the keys are working,

I am working on putting in some of those thumbs up and down emoji's...it is a good idea to include them......useful


Mike down in the bottom right of the page you will see a "Delete cookies" link. Click that and clear out your browser cache. This probably will not fix it but will help us track it down if that behavior persists

[mikewalsh]

@ rockedge:-

Nah; it's not the site, mate. It's doing it in every browser, on every web page. This is a relatively new install of Bionicpup64.....my first 'stable' install since last year's 'betas' finally made it up to 8.0 status. My sole 64-bitzer has been Xenial64 in the meantime...

I'm thinking I've inadvertently 'triggered' summat by mistake. I'll find it.

Nice one with the 'thumbs-up', by the way. We've needed those for long enough..! ( )

Cheers.


Mike.

[darry19662018]

In answer to the original question - I like the way the sections for each OS are layed out.

[wiak]

But what makes Tazpup any more 'worthy' of being singled-out for special attention than, say, WeeDog? Or Puli? Or Quirky?
Mike

I have to say that I (biased) personally agree with this comment, and wondered exactly the same. FirstRib/WeeDog has absolutely nothing to do with the DebianDogs despite the fact I added debian/ubuntu/devuan build capability to FirstRib build script via debootstrap - that was not done to emulate the DebianDogs themselves in any way but rather to make FirstRib multi-distro/repository capable (like Puppy woof-CE) but, for me as its lead developer, FirstRib/WeeDog main target is overall very much a Void Linux xbps package manager based build system, and WeeDog provides an entirely independent initramfs, which again has nothing to do with the DebianDogs.

However... I did say I would accept and go with the flow even if the Linux Dog thread is going to be a bit overcrowded with mix of DebianDogs and 'some' other independent distros like WeeDog, and I'll go with whatever arises despite my definite misgivings. Any extra sections (such as LinuxDogs) is better than the old forum, which is organised really entirely as Puppy-only but personally I hope to one day see no distro being given any priority, as far as possible. 'Dogs' should not be thought of as a section nor as any one class of distribution though. The name 'Dog' I feel is really just a nod to Puppy as one of the inspirations, but generally might indicate it isn't so concerned with remaining small in size (though could still be). New distros come and old distros go so hopefully the new forum will take care to cater for that ever-changing likelihood or the only advantage would be https and new phpBB.

Having said that, there is indeed a limit to the possible number of section categories but I'd certainly push for the DebianDogs to have a section all to themselves (actually, at least as many sections as Puppy Linux) since they are well established and with many flavours (Xenial, Bionic, Buster, Stretch, including build systems, and so it goes on). FirstRib/WeeDog is very new to murga forum and doesn't have or need a lot of threads there at this stage (though I could see that changing rapidly but not when held-back and forcibly hidden [including no 'sticky' announcements of other distros allowed...] inside a one-section thread swamp as in old murga forum), and neither does the likes of TazPup or EasyOS, IMO, so at this stage I feel these less established distros would be better grouped together (in individual subsections each of their own, if possible) until and if any one of them expands its forum presence/user-interest (EasyOS a bit more established of course, but it is just one distro and thread really too - it is not like DebianDog, which is complex in terms of distro offerings and multiple thread needs). So my own issue would be the grouping of WeeDog with the DebianDogs. I'd rather see WeeDog in OtherDogs (along with TazPup and EasyOS etc, and I wouldn't write-off corepup either, or dCoreDog for that matter - who knows...) for the moment... and DebianDogs in section DebianDogs (and only with debiandogs per their website: https://debiandog.github.io/doglinux/

DebianDog is very small Debian Live CD shaped to look and act like Puppy Linux

; WeeDog is not part of that, and nor indeed is FatDog)...

The problem then is about the likes of Beginners Help and HowTo sections and so on - really need to subdivide these too since all the distros want ability to support beginner users and provide HowTo docs and so on. ???

The sections don't need to be big, but they do need to be defined in a way that doesn't result in a fight for development feedback likelihood scenario (which is chronic on old forum, even now for Puppy itself once into Projects Section). My own contributions will primarily be moving to their own websites and forum only needed for discussions/feedback.

Is it not possible to have top-level of forum being header for each distribution (or, when necessary to avoid section congestion, collection of distributions for these newer, less established ones) and then inside each of these top-level sections to have Beginners' Section, Users' Section, HowTo Section, Apps section and so on - i.e. duplicated but with a "General/Common Section" at top layer also for in-common/related matter underneath)? I guess that what my thread "Distributions available on Forum" was basically about - just a quick overview but with more detail internally (in its case via links to main website areas, but on forum I'd hope for sub-sections as above).

wiak

[superchook]

I think the question is how are the file system layers arranged. This is one way that Fatdog is different from the puppies. The 'Dogs are also structurally different. Puppies that could have been made using woof or remastered from other puppies can all go in one section.

cheers,
Ken

[mikeslr]

I think the question is how are the file system layers arranged. This is one way that Fatdog is different from the puppies. The 'Dogs are also structurally different. Puppies that could have been made using woof or remastered from other puppies can all go in one section.

cheers,
Ken

The definitive circumstance which makes a "Puppy" a "Puppy" is that --at least since Barry created Woof-- to be a Puppy it must be created using Woof.
Puppies such Bionicpup64 and dpup-stretch32 are woof-built using the binaries of a major Linux distro version, in those cases Ubuntu Bionic Beaver 64-bit and debian-stretch 32-bit, respectively. FatDog64 is also Woof-built although --I may be mistaken, but I don't think so-- it uses a different version of Woof. But unlike most "Puppies", it does not make use of the binaries of a major distro. Rather, members of the FatDog Team compile their binaries 'from scratch": I think, at this time in fact using 'Linux from Scratch' tools/mechanisms. FatDog64 also experiments to some extent with the layout of the operating system and with including some mechanisms not found OOTB in other Woof-built Puppies.

As I understand it --and here I am less certain-- what I've posted about FatDog is also true of Barry K's Easy, Quirky and the other operating systems he's built since his 'retirement'.

Tazpup, on the other hand is not a woof-build. It is rather a composite of Slitaz and Puppy: I think it is actually a version of Slitaz into which some of Puppies' modules have been built. AFAIK, its method of creation is unique.

If it makes sense to continue distinctions between 'small, light-weight, operating systems, which can be run 'Frugally' than may I suggest two 'Woof-built' categories: Regular and Specialized. I have no idea how to fairly organize this Forum with respect to non-woof-built operating systems. I don't think it can be done on the bases of what 'packages' can be used, or the sources of those packages. Deconstructing any package results in files which are far more often than not usable without regard for which operating system the files were built for and what operating system they are to be used in.

Perhaps a useful distinction could be the extent that the techniques discussed with respect to a particular member of a group can be applied to another member of that group with little or no modification. And perhaps have one or two Sections [Programming Solutions & a General How to] for discussions 'Universally' applicable to any operating system.

[wanderer]

hi rockedge and everyone

i do intend to start a new thread for corepup etc
as i am still playing with it
and cant pass up a chance to remain an annoyance

maybe a catch all section for misc stuff like corepup
would make things more manageable
i put corepup in projects because its a project
so maybe misc projects

anyway just tell me where to post my corepup thread when you are ready
and thanks so much for this forum

wanderer

[mikeslr]

... cant pass up a chance to remain an annoyance
maybe a catch all section for misc stuff like corepup...

An operating system combining the strengths of a Frugal Install with Tiny Core is a good idea. Its development and publication on a website devoted to similar projects and operating systems would be mutually beneficial.

However, a 'catch all section' was a problem. On a forum having a dozen or so SubForums, Projects and Cutting Edge were the ONLY places where discussions of 'non-woof-builds', along with other matter, were to be found. That resulted in woof-built operating systems having at least the appearance of being more important to the Forum.

Your exploration of corepup wasn't an annoyance. IIRC, what was annoying was that when you started posting it wasn't clearly labeled "Alpha/Pre-Alpha"; and/or, IIRC, there never were "How to" posts --linked from the first post-- providing a clear recipe of how to get from not having a corepup to having one; and explaining how to use it. Had I been warned at the very beginning I might have (a) skipped the thread; or (b) prepared myself mentally for a marathon rather than a sprint.

But having to read many pages of posts expecting and later just hoping to find a "How to Get it up and Running" was more annoying. Part of the reason the debiandogs had been so well received is that at the very beginning saintless provided How To threads.

A year or a couple before I had, as a freshman, moved into one of my college's dorms it had completed construction of many new buildings. There was a typically rainy autumn and I recall being annoyed in having to walk on muddy paths from one building to another. The brilliance of not having cement walks only became evident when later they were laid on the short-cuts between buildings the students themselves had made.

rockedge is not required to imitate any forum's structural pattern and section classifications. Active management will enable him to make modifications as the need becomes evident.

Offered just as an idea. Perhaps three, four or more SubForums: one or two specifically concerning programming techniques and questions; one "Cutting Edge" for proposed or possible modifications requiring a knowledge of programming [the work gyro does comes to mind]; and one "Cooking" where a knowledge or comparative knowledge of operating systems and their modification could be highlighted. Such work as yours on corepup and mistfire's work on tazpup come to mind. New threads for finished projects (or release candidates) could be opened in a different SubForum when projects reach that stage, with the opening posts there providing a link to the thread of its, respective, development.

I am not a Linux developer in any sense. I don't pretend to know what forum structure would best fill the needs not only of users but also developers. rockedge is very likely to have better ideas. That said, now that we can have active forum management, a Section for input as to modifications of the Forum's structure may be of value: to him in developing a Forum which serves the needs of its members; and to us in assuring that we have a role in that development.

[mikewalsh]

Perusing the last several posts of this thread, one thing seems apparent; folks seem to want a similar layout to what the Murga-Linux forum had, albeit with even further sub-divisions.....so that each and every 'project' gets its very own, 'special', exclusive slot.

A word of caution, kiddiwinks. Uncle Mike doesn't fall into any of these categories - I freely admit I'm just a 'bodger', and occasional packager - but.....where are you going to draw the line on this? Ya cannae sub-divide and sub-divide ad nauseam, for it soon turns into a marathon to find anything, and more annoying than the multiple nested menus on a Gnome 3 shell.....

Naturally each and every developer wants 'star billing' for their personal pet project, and between 'em they'll have as many differing opinions on a range of ideas/subjects as there are days in the year....

To my mind, the old forum's layout was not half bad as it was. But that's just my tuppence-worth, FWIW.


Mike.

[wiak]

One glaring inconsistency is that there is no "Puppy Linux" section. There is an 'Advanced Topics' section that contains Puppy Projects and Derivatives, but it also includes Additional Software, which for now seems to be being used for Additional Software for all other distros here too. Or perhaps I'm mistaken and Additional Software is for Puppy Linux only? If for Puppy only then that whole section should be named Puppy Linux though Additional Software should be a sub-forum since taking up too much first level of hierarchy space unless you like long................... forum first page.

If the sections are arranged consistently between sections (with sub-forums for HowTos/Utilities-Additional Software or whatever you wish to call them) then it becomes easy to find ones way around. Otherwise it becomes an inconsistent muddle.

I suppose users are currently just happy to still have a forum, but as new threads get added it becomes much more difficult to re-organise. Sooner better than later and first thing to do is to decide what the first layer (first page Categories) should look like, and then how many items is acceptable in first set of forum names within each Category, followed by consistent design of sub-forum hierarchy so people get used to it and thus don't get lost.

I'm not saying I think it is bad, as is, but that Advanced Section is wrong, unless Puppy moved out of it to its own section. So could have a general , top layer Categories: 'Advanced Topics Section or better in my opinion forget about the terminology/section HOUSE TRAINING - just put all that HOUSE TRAINING and ADVANCED TOPICS into one lead section (to include Hardware) and maybe just User's Help rather than also having Beginners Help. I always found having two help sections a pain - newcomers use both so why have both? Questions get answered in Users just the same as under Beginners, so no need for that anyway - just 'Help' would be nice (or General Help)... And individual distros can have their own subforum specialist distro-related Help if they want or need it (though in practice feedback usually ends up in dev threads and that's where specific help usually gets addressed in previous forum - but specific Docs or HowTo subforum is useful though that might be better off-forum on distro official website or Wiki - HowTos tend to be forum member written, however, so at least General HowTo section is very relevant).

I agree, you don't want many layers of sub-forum hierarchy. But also you don't want too many items on first page. A consistent balance is needed, but there will be many opinions on what that structure should be.

Or just live with it as it is (well... some sub-forums do need added on distro-basis...). It provides some space for all, albeit with some anachronisms.
EDIT: Actually, there are hardly any 'sub-forums' in the current structure as it stands. Additional Software section had these in old forum already.

wiak

[wanderer]

hi all

since this new forum is starting
and decisions are being made

i just want to put in my vote
so that the moderators can at least hear one opinion
it would be nice if everyone else would vote as well

i think keeping it simple is the best way to go
everyone would like a forum section all to themselves
but since new projects are constantly starting
and old projects are constantly changing and ending
it will be impossible to keep up with the constant changes
i had no problem just scrolling down in projects or derivatives
until i found the thread i was interested in
the topic of the thread is listed in the title
the most active ones rise to the top
so for me less is more

anyway thank you guys so much for hosting this forum
as long as we have a forum
anyway it turns out will work out

wanderer

[Keef]

Perhaps just split it up by build system - WoofCE 'official' and otherwise, the DebianDogs, and WeeDogs. That should cover a multitude of sins. Remasters and odds and sods can be lumped together. FatDog would warrant a section too.
I'm not a fan of endless sub-forums either. The Additional Software section could be pared down, as there are not that many entries for some parts anyway.

[wiak]

Perhaps just split it up by build system - WoofCE 'official' and otherwise, the DebianDogs, and WeeDogs.

WeeDog started its own forum quite a long time back (also currently, and hopefully longterm, courtesy of rockedge). Not many discussions take place on it, but fine with that and growing in complexity/flavours/distro-plugins so keeping it that way.

Was planning to move FirstRib WeeDog from old forum anyway, for reasons I made clear I think, and back then little interest was being shown in this new forum so rockedge kindly offered me separate forum space for WeeDog and, whether temporary or permanent, I went with that instead of finding own forum host.

Certainly this forum is no doubt likely to be the hub of discussion activity more generally, and there is nothing to stop any discussion of WeeDog in some 'Other Distros' category. However, main WeeDog release(s) feedback is more appropriate IMO in WeeDog's own forum especially since so many individual WeeDog distro flavours/plugins are already being produced and I don't want to answer same questions concerning WeeDog in different locations/forums since feedback discussions are important/relevant to all WeeDog users/contributors.

WeeDog is not trying to be like any other distro particularly, nor is it concerned about disk install size - though it can be trimmed as small as you like...; nor, by default, does it try to be any kind of look-alike of any other distro but, like a DebianDog, it 'can' and usually does use official upstream distro package-manager/repos/post-boot-system-organisation, but actually doesn't have to.

[bigpup]

It is up to the person(S) that own this forum.

When Fatdog was first released it was different than an Official Puppy version.

It is now, very much different, to an Official Puppy version!

It even has it's own repository on http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/

If you want to support Fatdog, by letting it use this forum, for it's forum.
Fine.

But where is the section on Ubuntu, Mint, Slackware, Red HAT, etc......?

[JakeSFR]

Hey Bigpup,

Some clarifications...

Fatdog is not Puppy Linux

That's correct.

It is up to the person(S) that own this forum.

Agreed.

When Fatdog was first released it was different than an Official Puppy version.

"The very first ever of Fatdog was released on 12 April 2008 (or 11 April, depending on your timezone ). It was released as an SFS, a standard package extension format used by Puppy Linux. The SFS came with additional software for use with the (then) recently released Puppy Dingo (Puppy Linux 4.0)."

"The second Fatdog release, the first release as a full operating system
Titled Fatdog 110, it was released on 14 Feb 2009. It was an almost plain remaster of Puppy 4.1.2 (="puplet") with additional packages, as well as an SMP kernel, enabling full utilisation of dual-core systems."

[ref.: http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/web/history.html]

It is now, very much different, to an Official Puppy version!

It even has it's own repository on http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/

Agreed. However it's still more similar to Puppy than to any other distro.

If you want to support Fatdog, by letting it use this forum, for it's forum.
Fine.

But where is the section on Ubuntu, Mint, Slackware, Red HAT, etc......?

Fatdog evolved from Puppy.
Ubuntu, Slackware, RHEL, etc. didn't.
In evolutionary terminology, Fatdog would be Puppy's descendant that speciated.

Hope it's clearer now.

Greetings!