Towards a Working Definition of Puppy Linux

[vtpup]

It seems to me that many misunderstandings which occur on a forum like this are a result of unstated conceptual differences with regard to what is being talked about. And one of the main topics which is not very easy to find common understanding about here is the term Puppy Linux, itself. Different people mean different things by it and have different assumptions about it. That's partly a result of its history.

Once upon a time it was easy. Barry Kauler invented and developed Puppy Linux. So what Puppy Linux was, was obvious. Barry did make remastering Puppy Linux easy for users, so a great number of imaginative reconfigurations of Puppy instances with varied applications and desktops were developed by users. These were called "Puplets". And they were still considered Puppy Linux. They just weren't the mainline official Puppy Linux distribution.

Barry eventually retired from active development of Puppy Linux, and versions of the OS began appearing that went beyond simple remasters. There were CE or Community Edition versions of Puppy Linux. There were versions of Puppy Linux created using a compiling tool for the purpose invented by Barry, called Woof. This tool could assemble a Puppy Lnux version using repositories from any of many different existing Linux distributions. Then there was a new version of Woof created by users called WoofCE.

Today with so many changes along the line, I think it would be helpful to put our heads together and try to reach some common understanding of what the term "Puppy Linux" means in the present. If we can do that, it will help us to support it for users, help us develop it for future, and help us promote it as a viable Linux variety. If we don't know what we're talking about when we use the term, or disagree what we mean by it, then it inhibits progress, community, and communication. It creates division, based on misunderstanding, and that's a waste of time and emotion for all concerned. Misunderstanding what Pupply Linux is turns dialog into arguments over legitimacy and fosters resentments.

I think there's an easier way to accommodate the variety of interests that are the result of this movement that Barry Kauler initiated. I hope others will join in to voice their own understanding about what Puppy Linux is in the present, and help move us toward a definition that is workable.

An ongoing and updated summary of ideas contributed in this thread (and the questions they infer) is located in this post: http://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewtop ... 1fe#p66939

[vtpup]

While I don't have a definition myself right off the bat, please do consider that the term Puppy Linux has always been an overall umbrella term with more specific categories of things delineated beneath. Puplets and official distributions were early examples of categories within the broader definition of Puppy Linux.

[geo_c]

Could it be said that currently Puppy-Linux is more of a family of Operating Systems than a single Operating System construction?

Though I have usually stuck with the available "Official Puppy Distros" over the years, or audio-remasters of them, I have in recent years booted up most of the available "pups" as well as Fat-Dog and KLV. It's always been comforting to see that even though various puppy distros may be significantly different under the hood, there is a certain consistency in their look and feel, as well as the common utilities and tools included.

The so-called dogs, and newer systems like KLV would be exceptions, as the Fat-Dog welcome screen indicates, "Your puppy tricks won't work here." That being said, I view the puppy-linux environment/community as more of a philosophy than an implementation. The best I could do to describe this philosophy is point to things like: running-as-root, frugal-installation, backward hardware compatibility, layered file systems, lean and versatile utilities, lightweight desktops, portable apps, etc.

I view the puppy-linux ethos as one of creativity and resourcefulness. This ethos seems to me to spawn many "side-projects" and interests, such as weedog-it, and easy-OS, which isn't puppy officially, but seems to follow the philosophy.

That's why I say puppy is a family of OS's, that perhaps could be better defined in their own right, as members of the family.

[wiak]

Could it be said that currently Puppy-Linux is more of a family of Operating Systems than a single Operating System construction?

Though I have usually stuck with the available "Official Puppy Distros" over the years, or audio-remasters of them, I have in recent years booted up most of the available "pups" as well as Fat-Dog and KLV. It's always been comforting to see that even though various puppy distros may be significantly different under the hood, there is a certain consistency in their look and feel, as well as the common utilities and tools included.

The so-called dogs, and newer systems like KLV would be exceptions, as the Fat-Dog welcome screen indicates, "You're puppy tricks won't work here." That being said, I view the puppy-linux environment/community as more of a philosophy than an implementation. The best I could do to describe this philosophy is point to things like: running-as-root, frugal-installation, backward hardware compatibility, layered file systems, lean and versatile utilities, lightweight desktops, portable apps, etc.

I view the puppy-linux ethos as one of creativity and resourcefulness. This ethos seems to me to spawn many "side-projects" and interests, such as weedog-it, and easy-OS, which isn't puppy officially, but seems to follow the philosophy.

That's why I say puppy is a family of OS's, that perhaps could be better defined in their own right, as members of the family.

Let me just finally say about it: Puppy is not an overlord patriarchy umbrella. It is just a single distro and a pretty old design at that (but with of course newer variants - it is a distro - okay for its purposes - fine - nothing more, nothing less - like all distros). This define "Puppy Linux" distro is no concern to any other distro on here - it is a matter of interest only to those who build actual Puppy distros, and remaster them to create derivatives. KLV isn't Puppy Linux - it is not some inferior mongrel either - rather it is a kind of chameleon where components have been chosen to best fit the intended final design. Its main build is undertaken using Firstrib/weedog build system actually, so it is mainly a weedog, utilities are added from anywhere found useful, and the kernel used is a huge kernel type to allow easy booting without module/driver bloat, and Puppy is a convenient source of ready made or kernel kit make-able huge kernels - which is fine but entirely up to rockedge any such component or build system he invests time in. Any huge kernel type could be used, and most easily if it includes overlayfs built in, but as long as overlayfs module is available, that can be used too - so a current FatDog kernel could probably be used instead, and a non-huge kernel, say official Void Linux or Ubuntu kernel could be used instead too - though then some boot modules would need added into the weedog initrd. The DebianDog save from RAM utilities are particularly useful in KLV though.

Rather than Puppy Linux being a 'Family' of OS, it is a case of a shared discussion forum and what comes out from the users who populate that, and that's all - Puppy just one of many distros here - nothing more and nothing less. Not a pseudo patriarchy, despite the way some people try to frame it.

[geo_c]

KLV isn't Puppy Linux rather it is a kind of chameleon where components have been chosen to best fit the intended final design.

Rather than Puppy Linux being a 'Family' of OS, it is a case of a shared discussion forum and what comes out from the users who populate that, and that's all

Well, I hear you reiterating my idea that KLV/Fat-dog/etc are not "puppy-linux" but that there is something of a common ethos, in that those who develop and implement these diverse approaches to linux systems are being creative and resourceful, thinking outside the box. To me that's what I think of as the "puppy brand." It's a community of people who think a little outside the box and incorporate the total knowledge contributed by the forum members.

However, I believe it's just a little more than the forum in and of itself, and there ought to be a way to define what it actually is for people new to the forum, to communicate what identifies the puppy-enthusiast approach, which I would describe more as an "environment" of resources which are found in the forum's knowledge base. Within that environment are distros, installation techniques, utilities, system-build techniques, applications, kernels, etc. It should be possible to define and categorize these tools and systems even though I realize it would take a substantial time and energy investment. It certainly won't just "happen" because some of us would like to see it happen.

The puppy forum, it's contributors and developers have been around a long time. I'm sure there are probably emotions, attitudes, history, and even "politics" that factor into the equation to some degree, but ultimately the puppy-linux community to me represents an amazing string of accomplishments that are worthy of the effort required to move forward.

[wiak]

Like so many here, I am no longer young and at that three score years plus ten mark. I have done my own bits of development through all my life - mainly to do with electronics, but including with Linux, and computer interfacing, since 1991 (pretty early you could say) and UNIX prior and assembly language micro boards in the late 1970's. I didn't choose to make distros back in the 2000's; of course I could have, but I chose to do other things, and at that younger age 'things' I found more challenging and difficult for me personally than any Linux dev work I've latterly done, and achievements I'm far more personally 'proud' of as a measure of technical achievements in my life thus far - but pretty much irrelevant achievements now.

As for any religious-like distro definitions that involve Animal imagery placed artificially on high pedestals along with god-like worship of their Maker called Creator... The word that comes to mind is... Daft.

In fact I don't understand at all any kind of distro creator 'worship' or over-the-top respect. Rather, well done I say (pretty much irrelevantly) to all who ever created anything in whatever field - that is part of all our lives, more or less. We all come to the end of our own lives one day, and did whatever we did, the good and the bad of it, and answer to no-one here at the end of the day. I couldn't tell you the identities of most people who put together most distros I've come across, and I couldn't care less, and that's the same for anything I myself have ever made or productively done - some of it is useful now, most all of it will be useful to no-one at all eventually. The high pedestal was nothing but hot air after all, an illusion by some who it seems need something to worship, to feel part of something bigger than they feel themselves, when no such divinity is involved.

Main thing is to have lived life and lived it at least relatively interestingly to some measure of fulfillment and satisfaction, and whatever help anyone does for others is a certainly a nice thing - but let's not make false idols, placing any ever-created distro onto a high up pedestal, defining it as if it somehow comes from heaven or was produced by a god. It didn't. A distro is just a technical assembly, and doesn't belong on any pedestal, and was made by a human, who decided to make it.

By all means let's thank anyone who helps anyone else, but let's not, via fanatic definition, elevate the relatively (albeit technical) simple process of distro creation such that it becomes worshipped in sheep-like fashion along with any person who put in the hours, the effort, but nevertheless perfectly human effort, to make the distro in the first place. No forum is heaven, and no distro builder is god, but thanks to all who work hard and share the results of their lifetime labour and hobby pursuits.

I reckon, considering my present health, which is relatively fine, I plan around ten more years tinkering with Linux technicalities, what here is referred to as 'development', as a hobby - a hobby for MY own pleasure and frankly, for nobody else. So well done everyone and anyone, who has ever made anything that others found useful for a while, but no-one ever asked you to do it on my or their behalf or me for them or them for me.

My father once made a television in 1953 out of a one and a half inch diameter war-surplus oscilloscope tube and a few valves and it was the first TV in our Scottish village and all the neighbours came round to watch of all things the past Queen's coronation on it. Imagine a couple of dozen people crowding round a one and a half inch glowing green phosphor screen watching the horses and carriages roll by! Technically, by the definition of the time, totally leading edge, for such an environment, and impossible for most to make. But that didn't elevate the man to any god-like status; like all of us he did many other things in his life, bigger things for sure, and no doubt personally happy and perhaps even proud about some of them, but all forgotten now - just another brick in the community wall.

[wiak]

I am not in the Puppy Linux community. Just a fact. Puppy Linux is just yet another distro to me.
I have been in a forum community for long time, but not because of what it was called, despite having once used that distro too (but way way back), along with many others at the same time. I stayed in this forum because it was relatively active and diverse technically, and I enjoyed discussions with some of its similar-minded members (but not others) - wasn't restricted to discussions concerning one little distro, that for some scenarios was relatively popular at the time. Its single-user limitations made Puppy of limited use to myself always, so by 2013 I was delighted when the DebianDogs appeared in this forum, that continues to be referred to as the Puppy Linux discussion forum, Puppy being long since a distro that I myself really have little to discuss about. I suppose that says it all for me and probably should have accepted from the definition implied by the forum title long ago as one I do not fit well into.

[Grey]

despite the way some people try to frame it.

wiak, well, you know the simple reason in the depths of your soul and brain why this is happening People need (necessarily) a touch of mystery, a layer of romance and a bit of "private property" (this is my distro) Without all this, it will just not be so interesting. Hence all the disagreements about what is considered classic and what is modern.

[peebee]

From:
http://www.puppylinux.com/

First thing first
Puppy Linux is not a single Linux distribution like Debian. Puppy Linux is also not a Linux distribution with multiple flavours, like Ubuntu (with its variants of Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc) though it also comes in flavours.

Puppy Linux is a collection of multiple Linux distributions, built on the same shared principles, built using the same set of tools, built on top of a unique set of puppy specific applications and configurations and generally speaking provide consistent behaviours and features, no matter which flavours you choose.

The problem may be that the "shared principles" and the "consistent behaviours and features" are not adequately defined, or are somewhat fluid. (the "set of tools" and "puppy specific applications" probably are??)

[wiak]

despite the way some people try to frame it.

wiak, well, you know the simple reason in the depths of your soul and brain why this is happening People need (necessarily) a touch of mystery, a layer of romance and a bit of "private property" (this is my distro) Without all this, it will just not be so interesting. Hence all the disagreements about what is considered classic and what is modern.

Yes, I give up talking about this thread... Puppy Linux is name of the Puppy Linux distros - nothing more nothing less - I know what they are and which ones are Puppy Linux, but I'll leave those who aren't sure about that to work it out for themselves.

[geo_c]

The problem may be that the "shared principles" and the "consistent behaviours and features" are not adequately defined, or are somewhat fluid. (the "set of tools" and "puppy specific applications" probably are??)

So just brainstorming here. If the 'shared principles and tools' are fluid, perhaps an organizational structure for the forum could define the tools and principles rather than the distros themselves. Does it use the puppy installer? Does it uses the puppy package manager? The forum or a section of the forum could look like this:

I. Puppy Package Manager
A. Fossapup64
B. Bionic
C. Slacko
D. etc...

II. APT Package Manager
A. VanillaPup
B. etc...

III. XBPS Package Manager
A. VoidPup
B. KLV
C. etc...

A similar flow could be used for File Managers, Desktops, Window Managers, Virtual Terminals, anything else that might vary from distro to distro. That way someone new deciding what distro to use, or trying to understand what the descriptions of distros mean to everyday use could get a sense of comparison of the tools and issues surrounding those tools.

edit: And a structure like the above would also allow those who are actively developing and focusing on a particular tool or technique to easily find what others using the same tools in other distros are doing. It might be easier to address bugs and issues related to the tool, and the distro-specific considerations.

If a new user has a question and places their question in an unrelated area of the forum, it would be easy to move, i.e. someone asks a question about JWM and they are using Fossapup, it goes in the Window Managers>JWM>Fossapup64 section. All questions related to JWM are found in that top level under the specific distro.

[Grey]

A similar flow could be used for File Managers, Desktops, Window Managers, Virtual Terminals, anything else that might vary from distro to distro.

You're thinking in the wrong direction A set of general-purpose programs for Linux is not so interesting. Imagine for a moment, for example, that Jake forbids the use of UExtract in any distro except for a certain one (his favorite). That's where the intrigue and adventure will begin
Today is some kind of gloomy day and I'm trying to cheer myself up

[vtpup]

Ideas so far and some questions for thought.

Question 1 : Is Puppy Linux a single entity?

Wiak: "It is just a single distro."
geo_c: "possibly a family of operating systems"
vtpup: an umbrella term with specific categories beneath
Peebee: possibly a group with "shared principles" and the "consistent behaviours and features" but that would need definition

Question 2. How would an operating system clearly be NOT a puppy?

vtpup: I'd like to propose, that first of all, if the author of the particular OS in question says it is not Puppy Linux, it isn't. Thus both Fatdog and WeeDog clearly state they are not Puppy Linuxes.

Question 3. What, to you, are some identifying characteristics of a Puppy Linux?

geo_c: possibly the type of package manager
fredx181: possibly puppy unique boot parameters

Question 4. If you believe that Puppy Linux applies to a variety of entities, what shared principles (if any) do you think that they have?

vtpup: Small size relative to major distros. An attempt to provide a full range of user applications through a "cut out the fat" approach to default app inclusion. The inclusion of specially written apps with high space efficiency. The option of running in memory. An approach that tries to facilitate a user as root, rather than discourage it.

[fredx181]

I haven't seen mentioned yet Puppy's boot parameters, e.g. pmedia= , pfix= etc.. . (which defines "Puppy" very much IMO).
The other OS's like Fatdog, DebianDog, WeeDog ... they all have very different boot parameters than Puppy (and all stuff different inside that is connected with it) and different to each other too, btw.

[vtpup]

Wish I'd made space in the beginning of this thread to have a continuously updated post which lists the different ideas as they arise. Kinda like my last post above.

Guess I'll link to that one in the first post, and update it as the ideas come up.

[Clarity]

Ideas so far and some questions for thought...

Question 1 : ... Question 4

Additional comments:
Question 2. How would an operating system clearly be NOT a puppy?

EasyOS and @dimkr's derivative expresses a change from traditional PUPs, thus are transitions, as well.

Question 4. If you believe that Puppy Linux applies to a variety of entities, what shared principles (if any) do you think that they have?

WE are soon to be 2 'decades' of 64bit PCs which are found today in dumpsters, intact. We, this community, should be beyond ANY concern of size given the massive changes that occurred in technology since its introduction. The kernels, the OSes, the hardware, and the instructions have undergone significant model changes leading to this "topic of size" being a useless unnecessary discussion or point. Today's discussion should have matured, by now, to the performance of the distros offered as some are better performers in their initializations, some are better performers in desktop applications, some are better performers in LAN services, some are geared for DB, some are ...

Performance is the most important thing we should be talking about today. We have long passed size consideration of the x486 days; now meaningless, today, in PC operations.

Some members substitute 'bloat' which also is meaningless as what is useful to some is this negative term to others.

Lastly, I am NOT discounting the very fact that some older 64bit PCs could struggle in initialization, but all should perform well upon desktop....no matter whichever discussion of 'size' someone wants to argue. Of course, by developer design, each performs differently, per se.

A distro found on this forum is aimed to give the allusions of similarities of a desktop format that should be easily seen as similar to any of the distos here.

NO Question: My personal observation
I am not sure how this all will turn out. My personal observation, but, it is an awakening that each of us should understand how we see Puppy Linux Discussion Forum's contents as we come here with differing attitudes, skills, behavior, and understandings of how to select, evaluate, get involved at differing levels, differing needs, and differing views of contribution to some level of goodness.

The discussions have led me to understanding the many seasoned members' views and to see why new users confusion exist. Again, as I have shared on a different thread, a NAVIGATION could help. But, now, in observation of our inconsistent views, ONE navigation might not be enough...multiples might be ultimately needed...if any.

To me, its a community centered on the my concept of PUPPY LINUX...merely a set of very good Linux contributions and a group of humans sharing good information about the distros found within, about Linux technology and technology, in general. Its a technology community providing useful contributions.

[wiak]

I haven't seen mentioned yet Puppy's boot parameters, e.g. pmedia= , pfix= etc.. . (which defines "Puppy" very much IMO).
The other OS's like Fatdog, DebianDog, WeeDog ... they all have very different boot parameters than Puppy (and all stuff different inside that is connected with it) and different to each other too, btw.

Now that you mention it, these parameters indeed are indeed key evidence of different distro designs here, distinguishing them technically as different distributions in their core internel design. A new user to FirstRib/WeeDog has to learn how to boot it, with parameters such as w_bootfrom=UUID=424d8f42-e835-4111-9053-dd086b3d38e8=/WDL_Arch64 and less common ones such as w_altNN=path2dir; no such thing as Pupmodes in it, though also a frugal installed distro (albeit with overlayfs preferred from the start) with similar functionality in these frugal layer ways at the end of the day (but full install not out of the question come to that).

What they look like to a user doesn't mean a thing - an official Ubuntu could be set up to look as if it any one of them, for example. And size of resultant distro doesn't matter, A FirstRib/WeeDog can consist of something like busybox alone, or any one of a number of package managers (even it seems sc0ttman's pkg if what rockedge says is correct...), or full on root filesystems from upstream big distros.

I'm afraid it is more than a bit of an artificial definition to try and make discussions/distros on this forum fit into any mould easily. This forum is more about the people on it and what comes from them than about any distro discussed on it. Kennel Linux was nearest to a usable definition of the place - whatever rises from the ashes here defines the place, but not any distro. And KL was thus potentially the community collaboration, be that KL Void, or KL Debian, with parts from any distro discussed here, the Kennel Linux thus being the only glue that actually bonds this community discussion forum together in any meaningful way.

Desktop used doesn't define anything, nor included apps - these are likely to change anytime: any distro can use XFCE, or JWM, or Openbox or whatever, and same goes for Apps and ways menus are provided and so on - Let's face it that kind of 'difference' doesn't substantially really exist.

[geo_c]

say Jake forbids the use of UExtract in any distro except for a certain one (his favorite). That's where the intrigue and adventure will begin

That's where my suggestion shines, in that case, the only place UExtract is discussed is in:

Compression Utilities
___Jake's Favorite Distro
____UExtract
______topic: Can I use UExtract in DankPup64?
________reply from Jake: NO!

edit: just to clarify, it's not necessary to say what's a pup and what isn't a pup, or what's weedog or any of that. All that would be necessary is to have categories of Boot Methods, build methods, install methods, utilities, desktops etc, and then if you're distro has it, enter a category for your distro underneath that top category, and then discuss away. It would be easy to see the differences.

Build Methods
I. Weedogged
1. Arch
2. Debian
3. Ubuntu
4. etc...

II. Woofed
1. Fossapup
2. etc... (I don't know enough to add others!)

III. Ribbed
1. KLV-Airedale
2. KLV-Boxer
3. etc...

IV. Dogged
1. Fatdog

See, I know I've got this all wrong, but if it was correctly organized and categorized on the forum, I would know what's what.

[vtpup]

I give up. Thanks to all for contributing..