What's happened to Puppy?

[mikewalsh]

@dimkr :-

Unfortunately, much as you and I both know it's not the case, try explaining it in layman's terms to the average non-computer-user in the street.

The simplistic view is that something with twice the bus address width, and more than twice the capacity, MUST, by its very nature, be twice the size. That's the way the average Joe's mind works.....and it's a very simplistic equation, fitting the "simple" maths that most folks understand.

Try as you might, you'll never make them see otherwise. You'll just be banging your head against a brick wall until hell freezes over..... When it boils right down to it, they don't want to understand, because for them it's completely meaningless.

They couldn't care less, so long as they can watch NetFlix, access their favourite social media site and chat with Grandma on a Sunday afternoon.

(*shrug*)

Mike.

[ahoppin]

Steve said: "I once did a comparison of Bionic 32 and 64, booted up Bionic32, went to a website, and it was using approx 520Mb of RAM. Shut that down, booted Bionic64, went to exactly the same website and it was using nearer 900Mb of RAM."

Steve, could that be at least partly because they have different browsers? Bionic 32 has Light and Bionic 64 has Pale Moon. I'd expect Light to use less memory, but I could be wrong.

Also, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare the 32 and 64 bit Bionics. They look and act very different. It's not just cosmetic. The included utility package is different, I think the directory structure is somewhat different, and as I said, the browsers are definitely different. And Bionic 64's ISO is 30% larger, 354 mb v Bionic 32's 272 mb.

As far as Puppy's future direction, whether it remains an old-hardware-friendly OS is for the pack here to decide. I can tell you that Bionic 32 runs nicely on my 17 year old Thinkpad T43. On the other hand, the most recent pup I can get to bark on my late-1990s Super Seven boards with K6-2 and K6-III processors is Wary 5.5.

As for the ISO sizes, I understand that they depend on various factors, but nobody can deny that Puppy has gained a lot of weight over the years.

Puppy 2.01 (32 bit) - 66 mb
Lucid 5.2.5 (32 bit) - 129 mb
Precise 5.7.1 (32 bit) - 156 mb
Tahr 6.0.5 (32 bit) - 205 mb
Xenial 7.5 (32 bit) - 325 mb
Bionic 8.0 (32 bit) - 272 mb

To put that in perspective, let's compare 64 bit Bionic's ISO size with 64 bit Antix-21's. Antix is considered a relatively light distribution.

Bionc 64 8.0 (64 bit) - 354 mb
Antix 21 base (64 bit) - 774 mb
Antic 21 full (64 bit) - 1.4 gb

To be fair, the Antix full ISO has 32 bit libraries baked in, along with multiple desktops, multiple file managers, and 2 kernels.

My point is that all Linux distributions have blimped out over the years, and Puppy remains one of the lighter ones.

[mikewalsh]

@ahoppin :-

As has been pointed out very recently on here, the biggest misconception about Puppy is that technological advancement should arrive, in regular doses, without a corresponding increase in size.

It ain't going to happen. As Commander Montgomery Scott was wont to point out, "Ya cannae bend the laws of physics". A byte of information contains exactly the same amount of data today as it did 30 years ago. Technological improvements invariably mean the addition of extra features.....which means more data. An individual binary or shared library might be pretty small by itself, yet successive newer versions will each be slightly larger than their predecessors. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of items that go to make up even a lightweight OS, and it's easy to see where those size increases come from over time.....

Mike.

[JASpup]

This specific puplet with Xfce that you use is not small because it's a 32-bit one, but because you're comparing it to much newer releases, or releases with more built-in packages.

There is some separation between the overall distro and the alt-DEs that you can see when they are landed in alphabets.

93 MB of my 407 MB Xenial 64 XFCE is the DE ydrv.
That is converted from the original 59 MB package.
(reasons for this kind of bloat past my tech level)

The ydrv for 32-bit +D XFCE are about 40 MB.
(38 & 42 MB) for Imp and Fossa respectively.

I suspect X-Tahr smaller still, though not separated.

That is Pale Moon or browser config data alone these days, nothing, to add nothing of how in Ubuntuland XFCE adds 1/2 G to a LXQt distro. Still headscratching over that one.

My Puppy numbers thinking tends to be relative the size of the entire distro, e.g., 80-90 MB for a browser pushing half the size of a 200 MB distro is not going to ram.

General variable guidelines and an account of the differences would be nice, but I imagine that all comes from personal experience.

[JASpup]

the xenialpups were built nearly exactly the same using the same recipe and there's just a 6mb difference between the 32bit and 64bit.

What explains the Android support differential?

[darry19662018]

You know the kernel your Puppy or any Linux Distro uses is a big factor. I tend to change to a series 4 kernel for most of my Pups or sometimes even a 3 and notice a difference in booting time. However some distros once booted the series 5 kernel makes little difference to performance. As for the size of Puppy increasing - look at what tech has to be supported now compared with when Pup 4 series came out, bigger kernels - that has an influence.

There has to be a point where a distro has a minimum target for the machines it will run on. So expecting a Puppy 4 with a modern Puppy is bit of fantasy really - though old Pups within reason can be taught new tricks (be updated but even that has its limits).

Just out of interest I run Devuan Chimaera Refracta with a series 4 kernel and performance is great. Changing kernel made a heck of a difference.

You know in Puppyland we can change kernels and make a more barebones Pup very easily if required so a bit of hardwork can get you what you want. I still think Puppy meets the old machine target it is just that what is considered and old machine changes. Do like my old 32bit machines though - had some great Dells of great vintage.

[8Geee]

Older 32-bit releases lke Slacko5.7 arre nearly turn-key. Even used with 64-bit machines. About 180Mb. But as time passes, glibc needs to be 2.25 minimum, gtk-3 needs to be included, and the kernel needs are 4.19.xxx or 5.4.xx. While upgrading the kernel and glibc are a true pain, the browsers and webpages just march on with bloat. Even Firefox does not note that a change to glibc is needed after an upgrade. Basically a puppy killer. Its obvious to me at least, 32bit must die. People need aa job, and creating "new and improved" is the method. Who cares if its broke or leaks, Another employee-group will fix it, and THAT keeps employment improving within the Company. JEEZ, if we built it right the first time too many people WOULD NOT have a job.

just sayin
8Geee

[stevie pup]

Reading through these posts I can't help getting the feeling that perhaps a few of you took my OP to be some sort of criticism? It was not, in fact my OP contained neither criticism nor praise, I was simply asking a question. Or is it just a typical human nature reaction to defend your favourite distro, no matter what? It's not that it's an issue either, after all I've tried out a few distros that have ISO files of 3Gb without any fuss, so any Puppy isn't going to be a problem. No, I was simply interested in what lay behind this continued growth.

I wasn't originally making any comparison between 32 bit and 64 bit either, the pros and cons of that crept in some time later. There have been a few comments regarding "technological improvements" and "additional features", something which Microsoft are full of, but I wonder how many we actually want or need? I admit that some of the more technical comments have gone straight over my head, after all I'm just an "average user", so all I can judge things on is what appears on my screen, and how it behaves.

Over the last two years I've had the opportunity to try out a large number of distros, on 3 different machines. I know which ones boot up fairly quickly, and which ones take ages, and I know which ones are most responsive in use. I know which are easiest to add additional software, and make alterations to settings, and which are a pain. One of my machines has the infamous Broadcom B43 wifi, and I know which distros are fine with it, and which are going to give me a headache. Like I said, I can only judge by what appears on the screen.

So to recap briefly on something I raised at an earlier stage, and I'm going to give 3 examples just to show there's no bias. If we ignore bloated browsers for a moment, what does Fossapup do that Tahr or Xenial doesn't? What does Windows 10 do that XP didn't? What does Linux Mint 20 do that Mint 16 didn't? You see, I could have aimed the original question at virtually any distro or OS out there.

Finally, I've noted the comment about keeping people in jobs. This may well be the case with Microsoft and Apple, but I doubt it applies to most Linux distros. And even in the cases of the big companies, is it really to keep people in jobs, knowing the hire 'em and fire 'em approach that some take? Or is it to maintain the vast wealth of the handful that are at the top of these organisations? No I'm not a staunch anti capitalist, I just recognise the difference between need and greed.

[Clarity]

My response, here in this post, is consistent with this response, earlier from @mikewalsh

You seem to be focusing on the "BLOAT" concept that I never understood. Its a concept that says "If we just stop time, all is well and necessary." Life doesn't work that way nor should my views of the improvements presented by others should, be that way,

If one doesn't desire improvements or change, then stay at a particular position in time.

I am not being bias for PUPs/DOGs in this forum. My earlier comments, if read, should reflect that, I intended it to be a general response to everything that has occurred in my short lifetime.

Hope this is a helpful view. It carries NO malice intent whatsoever. Its merely a view.

[666philb]

what does Fossapup do that Tahr doesn't?

hi @stevie pup ,

You can't remove browsers from the equation as so much is online nowadays and tahrpup will struggle running a modern browser.
Think Netflix, office 365, various streaming platforms including TV services (BBC etc). Whilst you (or i) might not use them many users do and expect them to work.

The gaming platform steam works on fossapup but doesn't work on tahrpup (you may not game but other users do)

fossapup can run on my modern desktop where as tahrpup doesn't even boot. (this is quite important for me )

choose a puppy (or OS) that suites the computer you are using.

on my 2003 thinkpad i have tahrpup 32bit which is the only pup where suspend works properly
on my 2008 core duo i have bionicpup64 . fossapup works but has problems with the wifi adapter
on my 2012 netbook i have fossapup64. this is the only pup that vsync works OTB with radeon graphics
on my 2019 rizen i have fossapup64 & jammypup64 (xenial & tahrpup don't boot)

out of interest what computer do you have and what puppy are you running on it?

cheers
phil

[xenial]

i find the complaints about puppy's size puzzling and laughable to be honest.

For instance.
look at linux mint which is heading for 2gb in download size. ...
Most pups are under or near the 500mb size which is small in comparison..

The buntu's and debians are bloated and in need of a diet.

[dimkr]

look at linux mint which is heading for 2gb in download size. ...
Most pups are under or near the 500mb size which is small in comparison..

Are you comparing the download size (the ISO size) or the installed size? The Debian and Ubuntu installer-only images are much smaller than Puppy, and if you take a base Debian or Ubuntu installation and put it in a squashfs image, maybe it's not as small as Puppy, but not very far.

[666philb]

some more interesting numbers.

these are uncompressed sizes.....

32bit pups

2004 - puppy 0.4 ----- 49mb
2005 - puppy 1.0 ------138mb
2008 - puppy 4.3.1 -- 288mb
2012 - puppy 5.2.8 -- 359mb
2013 - puppy 5.7.1 -- 516mb
2014 - puppy 6.0 ----- 729mb
2016 - puppy 6.3.2 -- 794mb
2019 - puppy 8.0 ----- 984mb

if anyone wants to try the first pups they will run in a VM and can be downloaded here http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/puppy-0-1/
bonus points if you can run them on actual hardware

[mikewalsh]

@666philb :-

Mm. Interesting...

I've a couple of what I call "test" Pups in the kennels, which I keep more for helping folks out with issues....both 32-bit: Tahrpup 6.0.6 and Bionicpup32.

I originally never intended to do much with them, just leave them bog-standard. However, I got to playing around with Tahrpup last night, and customizing it a bit more; I have a soft spot for this Pup, 'cos it was the first-ever fully functioning Puppy that I used for any length of time, back in late 2014/early 2015.

I've got her running in this 2019 HP Pavilion, with an Intel Pentium 'Gold' G5400. You know I run an Nvidia card.....and I have to run a later kernel, because otherwise there's no audio (this chip didn't even exist when the 3-series kernels were current!) I use the k4.1.30 'huge' kernel from over at archive.org, which is also in use in some other 32-bitzers.

For some reason, the 'nouveau' driver won't work here - possible library incompatibility, I would guess - so xvesa it is. 1024x768 looks a bit weird stretched out over 1920x1080, but it's perfectly usable for all that. And performing the ffmpeg update/avplay sym-link 'trick' has made it perfectly possible to even do video-editing in Tahr, along with sundry other multimedia stuff.

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

I have both 32- and 64-bit 'chroots' set up for both arches of older Pups. This way, I'm running the newest Firefox, Slimjet and Thunderbird.....though I admit it's not really a 'fair' test for those items. But if you have plenty of RAM AND storage, a chroot is definitely the best way to keep older Pups still functional as daily drivers.

watchdog's assistance with the use of a chrooted Pale Moon when Darren and I were playing about with his Puppy 4.3.11 'remix' - the "Phoenix" - 2 or 3 years ago has proved to be invaluable, and has turned out to be one of the most practical items I ever set up (both chroots get plenty of use)....so thanks go to him.

It's a good way to maintain the ability to access all the current on-line stuff (streaming, games, whatever). Because you're absolutely right; browsers, for better or worse, ARE an immutable part of the equation these days.

Currently posting from the newest Opera, running from a Fossapup 'chroot'.....under BK's old Quirky64 'April' 7.0.1 (which is Tahrpp-era).

Mike.

[stevie pup]

hi @stevie pup ,

out of interest what computer do you have and what puppy are you running on it?

cheers
phil

I have a few laptops, but the one where I normally use Puppy is an Acer B113 netbook, which only has 1.7Gb usable RAM, so needs something lightweight. Usually I run Bionic 32 on it, and don't have any problems. I have tried Fossa on it, but it did struggle a bit on a couple of occasions. My other machines are somewhat more powerful, and I run other distros on those. I'm currently running Manjaro on one and MX on another, and I don't have any problems with those either.

I should perhaps stress that I don't have any issues as such. This whole thing started simply because I had the theory in my head that the general increase in ISO sizes and the demand on resources was mainly down to web browsers, but I wasn't sure, so I raised the question simply out of interest and to see what other people's thoughts were. If you look back at the beginning of the thread the first four responses all agreed with me, so what would the average man in the street make of that?

I've noted your comments re streaming and gaming, and I see your point. Even though I don't use them many others do, and there is a need to appeal to the masses. The rest of us get it whether we like it or not. I have toyed with the idea of trying out a minimalist distro, then just adding the actual bits I need, but that will have to wait until I've learnt some more. From what I've seen so far most minimalist distros appear to be aimed at "experts only", and I'm certainly no expert.

Perhaps a further comparison is this. One of my machines is now 13 years old, and still works fine. The machine I use at work is only 4 months old, it was delivered, brand new, last November. So it stands to reason it's going to be a superior machine, doesn't it? But in what way? Ok give credit where it's due, it boots up faster. But apart from that I don't really notice any significant difference in general use.

Another example is cars. As cars have developed over the years they have become increasingly more powerful. Considering the blanket speed limits in place in various countries is that really necessary? Some would say not. But along the way there have also been improvements to fuel consumption, brakes, suspension, comfort, in-car entertainment, etc. So even for somebody who isn't bothered about the performance they can easily see all the other benefits. I'm afraid that with computers, irrespective of whether it's hardware or software, I just don't see all the supposed benefits of modern kit. Perhaps it is just all the bells and whistles that I never use.

[user1111]

My bespoke Bulldog, (core within Fatdog) boot, is less than 10MB. With that I can ssh into other servers and do pretty much most things I do (mail/messaging etc). Or graphical vnc into a local server and control that, in effect making my laptop just a gui terminal. The core puppy heart-soul is still there, just a lot more bloat around that in order for google to better track/profile you and for ads to be thrown at you.

I compile the kernel with localyesconfig ... so only the modules matching my actual hardware are built in. More generally the number of modules are for ever being expanded to include ever more hardware, most of which you'll never use/call-upon.

Puppy is still there, just surrounded by tons of trash. More often with modern browsers requiring you to dig down below 'accept us tracking/profiling you' "cookies" a.k.a. shit, and adverts to get down to the actual data/detail you were looking for. The alternatives without all of that are old-style textual based such as via ssh and googler where there are no cookies/ads, but equally less of a visual experience.

In practice I run both the heavy and light at the same time, drop down terminal that's ssh'd into tmux on a server with multiple 'windows' that are always on, so reconnect into the same session/setup/layout (from different devices/locations). Alongside Fatdog local gui desktop for more general/broad browsing and/or spreadsheets/docs/music/videos etc. Best of both worlds.

[ahoppin]

Good point, Rufwoof. I was a Unix SA in the 1980s, and back then, every kernel was specifically built for its hardware. If you upgraded the hardware, you at least had to link new drivers into the kernel. Today's Linux kernels packed with modprobed drivers are convenient, but they carry a price that's measured in megabytes and boot-time seconds.

Another reason for Puppy's growth is that he has more built-in features than in the old days. To name just a couple, Xsane for scanners is now included, as is Samba.

CUPS covers more printers. There are more libraries, to support more old and new programs. All of this takes up space.

If you want a more compact OS, they're out there, Core and Alpine, to name just a couple. Both of those are busybox based, as is Puppy. They're much more stripped down. They could be good choices for a "roll your own" system. The challenge might be getting them to work with your hardware. I don't think you'll find that many of the ultra-light distributions match Puppy for works-out-of-the-box-ness.

[JASpup]

You can't remove browsers from the equation as so much is online nowadays and tahrpup will struggle running a modern browser.

It's hardware ending my 32-browsing. Tahr is still a trooper with the Chromium 65 dependencies.

fossapup can run on my modern desktop where as tahrpup doesn't even boot. (this is quite important for me )

Me too 64 just posted that.

on my 2003 thinkpad i have tahrpup 32bit which is the only pup where suspend works properly

I still can't suspend my 64, Secure Boot/Quick Startup or whatever that is on a Redmond box. My XP laptop works. My 32-bit 7 netbook requires williams2presuspend.sh script:

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh
# pre-suspend script
#
awk '/enabled/{print $1}' /proc/acpi/wakeup | while read a
do
echo "$a" > /proc/acpi/wakeup
done

Of course X-Tahr has Suspend in the dropdown logout gui. This my 64 version but 32 is basically the same.

[JASpup]

these are uncompressed sizes.....

32bit pups

2004 - puppy 0.4 ----- 49mb
2005 - puppy 1.0 ------138mb
2008 - puppy 4.3.1 -- 288mb
2012 - puppy 5.2.8 -- 359mb
2013 - puppy 5.7.1 -- 516mb
2014 - puppy 6.0 ----- 729mb
2016 - puppy 6.3.2 -- 794mb
2019 - puppy 8.0 ----- 984mb

Occassionally the forum murmurs on usage and distro rank. Not a techical forte, but the next step would be to compare these sizes to the top alternatives and highlight what is given up in Puppy or gained by it for competitive publication.

[user1234]

some more interesting numbers.

these are uncompressed sizes.....

32bit pups

2004 - puppy 0.4 ----- 49mb
2005 - puppy 1.0 ------138mb
2008 - puppy 4.3.1 -- 288mb
2012 - puppy 5.2.8 -- 359mb
2013 - puppy 5.7.1 -- 516mb
2014 - puppy 6.0 ----- 729mb
2016 - puppy 6.3.2 -- 794mb
2019 - puppy 8.0 ----- 984mb

if anyone wants to try the first pups they will run in a VM and can be downloaded here http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/puppy-0-1/
bonus points if you can run them on actual hardware

Tried everyone using qemu. After seeing how horrible they looked in comparison to today's puppy, I have felt in love with my fossapup.

Tip of the day: To make your desktop look better, just see a worse desktop.

[mikewalsh]

@user1234 :-

Well.....yeah!

That's ONE way to approach it, I guess. Or, you could do as I do.....and design your own.

[Click to enlarge:-]

Mike.

[user1234]

@user1234 :-

Well.....yeah!

That's ONE way to approach it, I guess. Or, you could do as I do.....and design your own.

[Click to enlarge:-]

Mike.

How do you do that? Do you set a background image and then drag and drop your applications so that they give that kind of shell look or have you made a program to do all that? Or something else???

[amethyst]

You know the kernel your Puppy or any Linux Distro uses is a big factor. I tend to change to a series 4 kernel for most of my Pups or sometimes even a 3 and notice a difference in booting time. However some distros once booted the series 5 kernel makes little difference to performance. As for the size of Puppy increasing - look at what tech has to be supported now compared with when Pup 4 series came out, bigger kernels - that has an influence.

There has to be a point where a distro has a minimum target for the machines it will run on. So expecting a Puppy 4 with a modern Puppy is bit of fantasy really - though old Pups within reason can be taught new tricks (be updated but even that has its limits).

Just out of interest I run Devuan Chimaera Refracta with a series 4 kernel and performance is great. Changing kernel made a heck of a difference.

You know in Puppyland we can change kernels and make a more barebones Pup very easily if required so a bit of hardwork can get you what you want. I still think Puppy meets the old machine target it is just that what is considered and old machine changes. Do like my old 32bit machines though - had some great Dells of great vintage.

Hi, All previous kernels newer than version 4.4 had some annoying hang time at boot on my old laptop. However, ozsouth recently released some kernels he built. I downloaded one of these (I think it was 5.4.158) and it's the first newer kernel that boots fast on my old machine without some hanging. Try them.

[mikewalsh]

@user1234 :-

Well.....yeah!

That's ONE way to approach it, I guess. Or, you could do as I do.....and design your own.

[Click to enlarge:-]

Mike.

How do you do that? Do you set a background image and then drag and drop your applications so that they give that kind of shell look or have you made a program to do all that? Or something else???

@user1234 :-

Sorry to be a while replying. I lost track of this thread in a flood of other stuff I had to do.

I'll tell you exactly what I told someone else who asked me this. There's nothing fancy about it. I don't use any special software, nor do I perform any fancy tricks, or use fancy docks. This is all pure design; everything you see there.....with the exception of gKrellM, pWidgets, My-Weather-Indicator and the various icons/moving GIFs, is drawn directly onto the base background image.

Here's the same thing as put together with Mooi Tech's PhotoScape running under WINE.....before it's 'populated' with the apps & icons, etc:-

[Click to enlarge:-]

This is my 'finished' background wallpaper. In a way, it's a culmination of all the graphic design tricks I've picked up over decades of honing my "hobby"..... On top of all that, I have a directory absolutely chock-full of assorted PNG icons, either downloaded from the web, or created/built/modified by me. Currently holds around 750 some-odd icons; a very 'eclectic' collection of all sorts of designs, styles, 'cues' & looks.

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

Reason for the above is simple; I don't like the modern 'flat' look. I prefer images to have a bit of visual depth to them.....more like how they used to look back around the introduction of Windoze Vista. (It was a dreadful OS, but if nothing else it did LOOK the part..!) So, I build my own, or modify the hell out of items I can find online. (And I couldn't care less about matching icons and themes. I just use what I like the look of, because I'm not trying to impress any one.....it's me who has to look at it, so I prefer having something nice to look at.)

Gives me hours of enjoyment, and it keeps me out of mischief..!!

Mike.

[wizard]

@mikewalsh

Clever, I would not have guessed how you constructed it.

Thanks
wizard

[ndujoe2]

I like your quote Mike :

Gives me hours of enjoyment, and it keeps me out of mischief..!!

Mike

Joe

[user1234]

@user1234 :-

Well.....yeah!

That's ONE way to approach it, I guess. Or, you could do as I do.....and design your own.

[Click to enlarge:-]

Mike.

How do you do that? Do you set a background image and then drag and drop your applications so that they give that kind of shell look or have you made a program to do all that? Or something else???

@user1234 :-

Sorry to be a while replying. I lost track of this thread in a flood of other stuff I had to do.

I'll tell you exactly what I told someone else who asked me this. There's nothing fancy about it. I don't use any special software, nor do I perform any fancy tricks, or use fancy docks. This is all pure design; everything you see there.....with the exception of gKrellM, pWidgets, My-Weather-Indicator and the various icons/moving GIFs, is drawn directly onto the base background image.

Here's the same thing as put together with Mooi Tech's PhotoScape running under WINE.....before it's 'populated' with the apps & icons, etc:-

[Click to enlarge:-]

This is my 'finished' background wallpaper. In a way, it's a culmination of all the graphic design tricks I've picked up over decades of honing my "hobby"..... On top of all that, I have a directory absolutely chock-full of assorted PNG icons, either downloaded from the web, or created/built/modified by me. Currently holds around 750 some-odd icons; a very 'eclectic' collection of all sorts of designs, styles, 'cues' & looks.

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

Reason for the above is simple; I don't like the modern 'flat' look. I prefer images to have a bit of visual depth to them.....more like how they used to look back around the introduction of Windoze Vista. (It was a dreadful OS, but if nothing else it did LOOK the part..!) So, I build my own, or modify the hell out of items I can find online. (And I couldn't care less about matching icons and themes. I just use what I like the look of, because I'm not trying to impress any one.....it's me who has to look at it, so I prefer having something nice to look at.)

Gives me hours of enjoyment, and it keeps me out of mischief..!!

Mike.

That's exactly what I was thinking you must have done.... or maybe I would have done . I think it can also be done by creating an application for doing the stuff, but it would be a lot of (atleast a bit of) work to do.

I am learning to create graphics these days, using sdl2, c and a youtube video tutorial+sdl documentation. Would surely try to create some sort of application for it once I completely learn the graphic thing.