Installation - Frugal or Full?

[stevie pup]

Previously I've only ran Puppies in live mode from USB sticks, but I'm now thinking of installing one. My questions are:

1) I note that frugal installation is the normal recommended method. Can anyone explain, in relatively simple terms, what the main differences are between frugal and full?
2) What are the disadvantages of a full install, why does it appear to be frowned upon?
3) I also note that somewhere it said that full installs are sometimes recommended in exceptional circumstances. What are those "exceptional circumstances"?

I don't have any particular issue with it, it's just yet another instance where curiosity has got the better of me (it often does) and I'd like to know a bit more about it.

Yes, I know there's 3 questions, but as they're all about the same thing that's why I've kept them together in the same post. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks

[backi]

Frugal is "Creme de la Creme".

If you do not have a completely "under-powered" (regarding Hardware ) Stone Age Machine.......just do "The Frugal"......and do not ask any further.

[dancytron]

The exceptional circumstances are a very low ram computer or, perhaps, wanting to put it on some sort of unusual media like a chip or something.

Puppy and related OS's are made for a layered file system (3 or so read-only compressed files containing the whole operating system "stacked" on stop of each other with a directory for changes).

Frugal/layered file system enables Puppy to be portable and have multiple instances on the same drive simply by making a new directory, pasting the 3 or so files in, and making an entry in the boot menu file, make it harder to break because the whole OS is in read only files, and other amazing things that regular linux installs cannot do.

Full install usually works, but no one spends time testing it.

[oui]

Hi Stevie

It is simple:

"Install" has in the pc world the signification of «make a software resident on the actual pc».

At Linux, it has a second signification being «make a (Linux) distribution resident according to the rules of the distribution resident on the actual PC».

Why the difference?

Because the name Linux also has two significations . Linux is the name of the most important part of the distribution, the Linux kernel. It is not only valid for Linux distribution but also for Android for ex. Android also uses Linux, the same Linux kernel.

But under "Linux", we understand generally more: a distribution according the rules of the mother system "Unix" cloned as Linux distribution and having done some adaptation step by step as for ex. new hardware did appear. To clone Unix was the main goal of Linux as his creator did begin. For this reason, Linux did have (about) immediately a complete set of manuals explaining how that distribution has to work (completely different Android does not follow those rules although it uses the same main part, the kernel).

The distribution is an highly important point of view in Linux.

It is (now) possible to realize a Linux distribution with only a (very big) Linx (kernel), and all Linux is contained in it. And it is possible and was a long time necessary to add some functionalities required by the rules to really be a clone or successor of Unix by saving those supplementary active parts and settings to reproduce the real Unix system on a poor PC. Why? Because Unix was NOT initially a operating system for poor IBM PC's but a system for more important central computers used with one or more terminals and multi users as well as multi tasks. poor PC was not directly able to do that. but with the use of PC's did the number of environments and soon of new needs increase terribly. A professional Unix environment was terribly strong compared with the beautiful one-man IBM-PC and clones environment! And soon did an important difference of use appear, for ex. between a network station for a lot of terminals (not possible on the initial IBM-PC) and the office environments of IBM-PC's able to solve easily simple and beautiful jobs where central computers under Unix and more did have great difficulties:

The "distributor", the 2 older ones still active are slackware and suse, as well as a few later Redhat and Debian, was determinant to get a "Linux in harmony" with the goals of Unix (you must see that one of the most small Linux distributions able to be work in graphic mode, most Unix work station were not able to work in graphic mode, you can yet get actually did be contained on only 2 floppy disks, one full with only 1,5 Mo and the second half full with some applications for the graphic mode!

And that did also work (on IBM PC really arm an RAM): I was absolutely needing to subdivide the all distribution and pre-install all the part in an order so that after start the complex high security for a multi-users and multi-tasks environment in a network is present as under real Unix on a big computer, this also the PC station was a dwarf compared with an Unix computer...

This was the evolution since the publication of the first Linux (kernel) and the end of the 20th Century.

The Linux (distributions) did reach and offer more than Unix itself because the PC power did increase rapidly:

Linux (kernel) did become only a part in a lot of Linux (distributions) having each own rules but all analog to Unix: it was an obligatory condition to install each distribution according it's own rules with no deviation. And it was also a need to do that on a mass memory like hard disk, or later floppy disk, more later CD's and finally DVD's and USB-drives or mass memories.

For this reason the phase "installation" was very important, a major step or sometimes some taboo for guru's!

And the full installation is

that!

The next step as the size of distributions did increase faster as the memories and drives in the first years was as big memories and drives did appear internal and external on the market.

To simplify that, some freaks did try to adapt the Operating System to the size of at this time available memories. I did meet Barry Kauler at the black board of the distro "Menuet": the first Puppy's did reflect those Menuet's releases. Menuet was a try to shrink the Operating System by compiling it especially for one processor directly in assembler. That small distro was able not to exceed 1.5 Mo in 2000...2002 and offer a graphic environment like small Linux distributions like Basic Linux (baslin designed for DOS/Win95 PC's) but needing more than one FD to be complete (in Basic Linux, it was possible to draw with the mouse!).

Soon after this point did Puppy Linux appear as ISO able to be burn by each on a simple CD.

The new idea was:

Copy the very small content of CD into the RAM one time the day (or let the PC on all the time) and start the operating system itself immediately after the copy process in the RAM.

The design of the ISO file did have to contain all supplementary parts of initially jobs to do that, and, if not enough RAM, to try to start although that difficulty of leak of memory RAM enough of the system to permit it's use and hold on demand the rest again from CD (depending of the situation, the CD drive did become free or not for other uses, for ex. to listen music of course!).

This means: No installation any more at user side - Barry Kauler did compose the operating system, pre install it, also so, the PC can work needing only an very low size of RAM and a way to read the ISO.

Puppy was probably the first system really created to make automatically the choice (a few later, I did make very big remasterised copy of SliTaz as SliTaz did offer very comparable figures; but the size of the new ISO's compared with the size of available RAM was definitively a K.O. condition. I can't remember that SliTaz did come into the situation to maintain the CD in the drive to permit to continue to use the remastered ISO a certain time).

The sensational particularity of Puppy was born and with it Puppy as a great distribution able to be used without installation at user side, for this reason named frugal: after start through vmlinuz and initrd, Puppy uses only the pre installed and packed distribution in initially one file, today some squashed files (those with the extension *.sfs, this means "s"quashed "f"iles "s"ystem):

The Puppy (Linux distribution) is present on the PC about as a big Linux (kernel) containing all the Puppy distribution would be

or really as kernel-only-distribution (Barry Kauler did effective realize also that: all Puppy is in the very big kernel of some releases of Puppy = absolutely no installation at the side of user at the side of Linux: only the boot loader hat to be adapted. Puppy is in this case only one unique kernel file).

If you install full after that, you demolish some kind the specific propriety of Puppy to be completely pre installed

[bigpup]

Frugal installs:

Can be put on any partition any format, any type storage device.

They load more of Puppy into RAM.

Uses a save file or folder to store all changes, settings, added stuff, etc.....
Has control of how the save is used, when it is written to or not written to, where it is located.

Easier to backup, because all changes, settings are in the save. The core Puppy files never change. Only what is in the save changes. All you have to do is copy the save to have a backup.
If Puppy really gets messed up. Just delete the save and replace it with the backup save.

You can easily load or unload SFS program packages.
This lets you use a program without actually installing it to Puppy. You will have to use this option to fully understand it.

All of Puppy is placed in a directory (folder).
You can have many Puppies on one partition.
All completely separate from the other.
All in different directories (Linux term for folder).

Full installs:
Must be installed to a Linux formatted partition.
Uses the entire partition.
Main advantage is it uses less memory to boot to desktop.
Does not use layered file system.
Works best for compiling.
Does not run into size limit that a save file has on a fat32 format.

[01micko]

Full installs:
<snip>.
Works best for compiling.
</snip>

No. Not at all.

I compile on a completely different partition to my frugal install (in some instances) but that doesn't even matter. I build kernels, complex software and simple software. As long as the frugal install has devx loaded it's pretty much a cinch. It's probably more important to not compile inside your save directory/file because, unless you know what you are doing, 'whiteout' files (the special files that 'hide' stuff between 'layers' - without getting too technical) can get in the way.

Does anyone remember spup-100? It was based on slackware 13.1 IIRC and I did a full install of that on my main machine at the time (~10 years ago?). It was stable for quite a while, even with KDE-4.x installed, but what I missed was the flexibility.

More recently, I needed some settings on another computer on my network. I just compressed the save directory and sent it over the network to the other computer, installed the same puppy version on said machine, expanded the save dir, changed the hostname and after that my printer and scanner (networked) still worked from the new device! Try that with a full install. Sure, it's _possible_ but would take hours instead of minutes.

[stevie pup]

Thank you for all the responses, I've now got a much better understanding of the pros and cons of each, so it was worth me asking the question.

[bigpup]

Full installs:
<snip>.
Works best for compiling.
</snip>

No. Not at all.

I compile on a completely different partition to my frugal install (in some instances) but that doesn't even matter. I build kernels, complex software and simple software. As long as the frugal install has devx loaded it's pretty much a cinch. It's probably more important to not compile inside your save directory/file because, unless you know what you are doing, 'whiteout' files (the special files that 'hide' stuff between 'layers' - without getting too technical) can get in the way.

No not at all.
Then you point out issues, you can have compiling, using a frugal install, compared to doing it in a full install.

Full install compiling is the less issue way, but not the only Puppy install way to do compiling.

Sure looks like a topic needed in the How to Section->Compile of the forum
Help us all out, with some of your knowledge about this subject.!
Thanks!!!

[miltonx]

For me, it's all about the frugal mode that makes puppy my favorite and full-time os. Having said that, I have to admit that this is due to my OCD. For my compulsive obssession with a perfectly clean and brand new system each time the computer is booted is satisfied spot on with a frugal installatiion of puppy.

Most traditonally installed systems, linux, windows or otherwise, do pick up all sorts of garbage / bugs / viruses after some time of running. And our tinkering and installing/uninstalling various stuff only makes that worse. Nothing cleans a system better than a reboot of the frually installed puppy.

With a full install, I hate to know that someday a deadly bug or a stupid tinkering failure means I have to stop my regular work and spend 5 hours reinstalling / reconfiguring the whole system. I wonder how many users share my obsession, but I guess it's truly a concern for at least a few.

With a frual install, just compress and back up your save file/folder, or convert your save file/folder into an sfs file, and you will rest assured of a safe and well configed system on each boot.

[rockedge]

With a full install, I hate to know that someday a deadly bug or a stupid tinkering failure means I have to stop my regular work and spend 5 hours reinstalling / reconfiguring the whole system. I wonder how many users share my obsession, but I guess it's truly a concern for at least a few.

For me it is possible as I push ahead in some development that I blow up the system with some code errors or some bad newly installed library and I do not have to spend hours setting the system back up to the exact point where I wrecked it in the first place. I can make a mistake or push a boundary and recover quickly and push ahead with the actual work.

[Adam Li]

For my early puppies - say 2006 - I installed, among others, version 4.3.1 "Full instal" on HDD ext2 partition. Some power failure and it was over! Nothing can help - fsck show no errors, but system was dead. Living in dual Puppy / Windows world I always use frugal Puppy on NTFS partiton. That's all.

Cheers
Adam