Frugal and full installations - what's the difference?

[Tsla]

What's the difference between full and frugal install? and which one should I go for my pc?

CPU~Single core Intel Atom N270 (-HT-) speed/max~1333/1600 MHz Kernel~4.10.0-38-generic i686 Up~5 min Mem~237.4/986.0MB HDD~120.0GB(5.6% used) Procs~166 Client~Shell inxi~2.2.35

1 GB DDR2 ram 533 Mhz

[puddlemoon]

Frugal for sure.
Short answer, frugal install utilizes a very special (magic?) set of overlayed compressed filesystems that offer incredible benefits to performance and customization.

Full install does not.

Read up, it's quite fascinating.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=393

[cobaka]

@Tsla

The two words 'full" and "frugal" create the impression that you "get" something extra with a 'full' installation.
On the contrary - these words refer to use of disk resources. With a 'full' installation the OS uses all the partition. The full partition if you think that way. A frugal installation uses as much of the partition as needed - it can be as little as 500MiBytes for a minimalist installation. Moreover a frugal installation can be installed on a FAT32 filesystem. A full installation can only exist on a Linux partition.

Reference: http://wikka.puppylinux.com/FrugalOrFullInstallation

Bigpup knows a lot about installing Puppy Linux and one method (installation) he recommends is made on (or to) an 800/1000/1200MiB FAT32 boot partition.

Only yesterday I installed uPupBB32 to a flash drive from an iso file (using the ROX file manager) with MikeSLR's method. The result was a frugal installation. His method: (1) Partition a clean flash-drive. (2) Create a sub-directory (you can call it 'boot' or uPupBOOT or whatever). (3) Then copy files from the *.iso master to the boot directory. (4) Add the boot-loader. (SInce I was using a working copy of Linux on an old laptop, I used Grub4DOS). (5) Shut down the PC. That's it! Remove the installation OS and leave only the newly created flash drive on your PC. (6) Begin the boot process, making the USB thumb the primary boot device. Often, this is done by tapping <F2> while booting.

Mike's method is here:

viewtopic.php?p=1788#p1788

Don't be put off the detail in Mike's posting. It's complete and the method is easy if you follow his instruction. Don't rush! Follow the detail.

Using Linux I installed several Puppy variants, specifically uPupBB32 and the Slack Pup - both from the *.iso file. (If you click the 'iso' and you'll see the file 'inside' it; Mike describes how to do that. Or (a little different) I created a bootable CD and copied the files from the CD into the boot folder. I suspect you can do this using WIndows too, although I haven't done that yet. I don't know if there is a method of installing a boot-loader with Windows but (I suspect) new drives are formatted as FAT32, with a boot-loader installed. If so - then the Windows file manager will work with MikeSLR's method.

The point of all this: You'll get a working frugal Puppy and it's an easy process.
Good luck and Woof! to you!

cobaka

[bigpup]

How Puppy works:
http://bkhome.org/archive/puppylinux/de ... works.html
Most of this is telling how Puppy works as a frugal install.
Go down about half way to summary and the pictures. That is the basic operation of a frugal install in the different pupmodes.

Pupmode2 is a full install.

[dancytron]

I once again submit my suggestion to change the name "full install" to "legacy install" or "unlayered install".

[user1111]

Brings back memories. I recall my first ventures into Puppy and reading 'How not to install Puppy' ... and taking that as being the way to pretty much not do it. And the association to 'Frugal install' alongside that being taken as meaning a low spec choice. So of course I started with Full installs - and struggled with that (got through a stack of CD's trying the different versions (I was also wading through many other choices such as Knoppix etc.). But then the penny dropped and I transitioned over to the 'frugal' way.

Have long opined that 'Frugal' terminology should be dropped in favour of some other choice of naming.

[Wiz57]

I once again submit my suggestion to change the name "full install" to "legacy install" or "unlayered install".

How about "Compressed File Install" for frugal install? "Conventional install" for full install?
Add appropriate notes beside each, maybe list pros and cons?

[user1111]

I once again submit my suggestion to change the name "full install" to "legacy install" or "unlayered install".

How about "Compressed File Install" for frugal install? "Conventional install" for full install?
Add appropriate notes beside each, maybe list pros and cons?

I'd suggest you'd need to be more directive. 'Conventional' would naturally take precedence. Something more like 'Standard install' for frugal, 'Legacy' for full-install would have frugal-install more naturally take precedence.

[wiak]

I once again submit my suggestion to change the name "full install" to "legacy install" or "unlayered install".

How about "Compressed File Install" for frugal install? "Conventional install" for full install?
Add appropriate notes beside each, maybe list pros and cons?

A frugal install is to do with building running distro via layers not necessarily to do with compression. WeeDogLinux, for example, has from its design beginnings had a unique facility: it uses overlayfs to build the running distro but allows EITHER compressed sfs filesystems for the layers OR uncompressed directories (or a mix of both...). Layers stored as uncompressed directories take up more hard disk storage than sfs filesystems of course Not that that matters nowadays - most systems, even 10 year old ones, have tons of GB storage available... Uncompressed layers do have the advantage, however, in that it is trivial to modify that particular layer directly (unlike a compressed sfs which needs to be uncompressed first, edited, and then re-compressed). Using an uncompressed main rootfs layer proves to be very useful during development and for quick changes/tests generally - it's also probably a bit faster since no CPU overhead having to uncompress to use. The result remains a frugul install however, with all its advantages, including ability to have several distros similarly installed on the same partition.

It's understandable, nevertheless, that Puppy users would think that frugal installations require compressed filesystems to work, since that is what traditional Puppy design provides. Long since WDL was created with that extra uncompressed layering ability I've seen a complex attempt to provide same in an experimental Puppy initramfs/init build, but being a bolt-on, which hadn't been designed for, it was a very cumbersome bloated implementation that I wouldn't recommend be adopted - for reasons of initrd/init code lines complexity/length, performance, and general runtime efficiency, it's generally better to do a complete redesign rather than try to hack in a new facility that hadn't been thought of originally and carefully designed in with code efficiency/performance in mind. A good frugal install design should also be 'frugal' in terms of code complexity and efficiency whilst providing great flexibility and functionality. The performance advantage of doing so is noticeable, but that can only be achieved by careful overall design and not by messy hack attempts later. Frugal install implementations can become bloated too, and thus not as 'frugal' in practice in terms of init size, operational efficiency, and maintainability, as you might imagine.

Anyway, this being 'Beginners section', the main point is that a frugal install uses layers for its running distro construction (not that it is uncompressed or compressed), much like a graphics program can use layers for its complete image construction.

wiak

[Wiz57]

I once again submit my suggestion to change the name "full install" to "legacy install" or "unlayered install".

How about "Compressed File Install" for frugal install? "Conventional install" for full install?
Add appropriate notes beside each, maybe list pros and cons?

A frugal install is to do with building running distro via layers not necessarily to do with compression. WeeDogLinux, for example, has from its design beginnings had a unique facility: it uses overlayfs to build the running distro but allows EITHER compressed sfs filesystems for the layers OR uncompressed directories (or a mix of both...). Layers stored as uncompressed directories take up more hard disk storage than sfs filesystems of course Not that that matters nowadays - most systems, even 10 year old ones, have tons of GB storage available... Uncompressed layers do have the advantage, however, in that it is trivial to modify that particular layer directly (unlike a compressed sfs which needs to be uncompressed first, edited, and then re-compressed). Using an uncompressed main rootfs layer proves to be very useful during development and for quick changes/tests generally - it's also probably a bit faster since no CPU overhead having to uncompress to use. The result remains a frugul install however, with all its advantages, including ability to have several distros similarly installed on the same partition.

It's understandable, nevertheless, that Puppy users would think that frugal installations require compressed filesystems to work, since that is what traditional Puppy design provides. Long since WDL was created with that extra uncompressed layering ability I've seen a complex attempt to provide same in an experimental Puppy initramfs/init build, but being a bolt-on, which hadn't been designed for, it was a very cumbersome bloated implementation that I wouldn't recommend be adopted - for reasons of initrd/init code lines complexity/length, performance, and general runtime efficiency, it's generally better to do a complete redesign rather than try to hack in a new facility that hadn't been thought of originally and carefully designed in with code efficiency/performance in mind. A good frugal install design should also be 'frugal' in terms of code complexity and efficiency whilst providing great flexibility and functionality. The performance advantage of doing so is noticeable, but that can only be achieved by careful overall design and not by messy hack attempts later. Frugal install implementations can become bloated too, and thus not as 'frugal' in practice in terms of init size, operational efficiency, and maintainability, as you might imagine.

Anyway, this being 'Beginners section', the main point is that a frugal install uses layers for its running distro construction (not that it is uncompressed or compressed), much like a graphics program can use layers for its complete image construction.

wiak

OK, now explain all that to a total complete newbie...or at least give it that good ol' college try...
With all due respect, the term "install" does NOT refer to the running system, it is in reference
to the method by which the OS is stored (installed to) on the destination medium, be that a
hard drive, USB thumb drive, CD/DVD or I guess if one were a glutton for punishment they
could even try diskettes/floppy disks, lol (just a joke).
Look folks, how many times have we attempted to answer questions from new to Puppy users
about this terminology? How many times, in response to pleas for help do we ask "How did
you install Puppy?"
I suggested "Compressed install" to reflect the way the files are stored on storage media in
the more commonly recommended method for Puppy. "Conventional install" therefore is a
elusion to the way "full distros" place their files on the storage media. Whatever is decided
upon needs to be easily understood by new users, even just passers-by that skim over information
about Puppy.
Wiz

[mikewalsh]

Notwithstanding the fact that this isn't the place for expounding at length on this subject. I'll just add that I'm with rufwoof on this one. "Legacy" and "Standard" are about the best pair of terms we could use for this.

Terms like "Regular", "Standard", "Normal" & "Conventional" are what the majority of "noobs" will tend to associate with a reliable, accepted, tried & tested method. "Legacy" makes it pretty clear this is an older, less-commonly-used way of doing things.

It's something that does need to be re-written in the Wiki and appropriate places - like the installers over at Woof-CE - and sooner rather than later. We really need to address this.

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

@Tsla :-

Go for the frugal install. Trust me, it'll work better for you!

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

@wiak :-

Will, you carry on in that vein and you're going to lose most beginners in about 3 seconds flat, mate..! We regulars, who know you & love you ( ), are quite prepared to follow-through and read in entirety. Noobs, mmm....I'm NOT so certain.

I would estimate the majority of Puppy beginners mainly want clear, simple instructions initially. This is what bigpup is very good at. Yes, there are a few who like to know all about the "nitty-gritty" right from the word go, but they're few & far between.

(*shrug*)


Mike.

[tosim]

IMHO, what I really think is needed,especially for Puppy "newbies", are the EXACT steps, one by one, to take, in order to make a frugal install. This may sound too simple to many here, but think back to your beginnings!

[mikewalsh]

IMHO, what I really think is needed,especially for Puppy "newbies", are the EXACT steps, one by one, to take, in order to make a frugal install. This may sound too simple to many here, but think back to your beginnings!

^^^ This.

Mm....absolutely, mate! I can remember just how confused I was when I tried using Puppy for the very first time. Running Ubuntu 'Trusty' from the loathsome GRUB2 did NOT help.

Clear, simple, step-by-step "generic" instructions (for any Puppy) are exactly what are needed.


Mike.

[cobaka]

@mikewalsh

IMHO, what I really think is needed,especially for Puppy "newbies", are the EXACT steps, one by one, to take, in order to make a frugal install. This may sound too simple to many here, but think back to your beginnings!

I submit that MikeSLR (or mikeslr) has done this. He posted three methods of installing puppy Linux, each with detail that includes every step in the process. I tested his last method (where the files are copied (using the ROX file-manager) to a directory one level down in a partition). I don't want to become an advocate for Mike's method (because there are many methods available, but he has taken a good deal of trouble to set out a clear description of how it is done. And yes! Mike describes every step in detail.

As an aside, I think Mike's method may work in Windows too, because (with a new, clean drive formatted as FAT32) it involves only copying files. That assumes a working boot-loader is already on the flash-drive. I don't have a working copy of WIndows - so I can't try this idea.
cobaka
'
'

Kelpie_(yard-work_#2s).jpg (26.77 KiB) Viewed 2491 times

'
(In the snapshot: A happy working puppy.)

[peebee]

Notwithstanding the fact that this isn't the place for expounding at length on this subject. I'll just add that I'm with rufwoof on this one. "Legacy" and "Standard" are about the best pair of terms we could use for this.

My suggestions: "Monolithic" & "Layered"

The problem is finding and changing all occurrences .... Woof-CE is actually easy, but all the .pets not in Woof-CE that are used in a build would be a nightmare!

[Tsla]

Frugal for sure.
Short answer, frugal install utilizes a very special (magic?) set of overlayed compressed filesystems that offer incredible benefits to performance and customization.

Full install does not.

Read up, it's quite fascinating.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=393

Somehow full install says if CPU is slow then i should go for FULL install, and my CPU is extremaly slow so what do you think

[Moose On The Loose]

Somehow full install says if CPU is slow then i should go for FULL install, and my CPU is extremaly slow so what do you think

I have used frugal installs of 528 on a machine with a single core at 900MHz.
It was usable.

If you do a frugal install it is not that hard to change to a full install later.

[bigpup]

Somehow full install says if CPU is slow then i should go for FULL install,

Where are you reading this info?

Biggest benefit of full install is it uses less RAM to boot to working desktop.

Less of Puppy will be loaded into RAM.
But it will take longer to start a program.
However, what program it is may not show as starting slower.
Some of the programs in Puppy are very small scripts.
Does not take long to load them into memory to run.

[Tsla]

Somehow full install says if CPU is slow then i should go for FULL install,

Where are you reading this info?

Biggest benefit of full install is it uses less RAM to boot to working desktop.

Less of Puppy will be loaded into RAM.
But it will take longer to start a program.
However, what program it is may not show as starting slower.
Some of the programs in Puppy are very small scripts.
Does not take long to load them into memory to run.

I literally got this info from modal window on puppy which asked me to choose either frugal or full install

[puddlemoon]

Somehow full install says if CPU is slow then i should go for FULL install, and my CPU is extremaly slow so what do you think

Well, I'm not sure from which installer and from which puppy such a statement was issued. Does not sound familiar. I have installed frugal on a machine with a single core 1.7ghz cpu, just can't multitask as well...
You can probably gather from the responses so far that the full install is the older method but that does not mean better for older hardware. like bigpup said full install uses less ram at boot but puppy is very small so it is unlikely to overwhelm your memory. Perhaps if you had a gig or less of ram and insisted on using chrome browser you may find full install a better combo. Can't really say as I have never, in 8ish years of exploring puppy, done a full install.

Also for testing, frugal is far more friendly. You can save changes, start from scratch at any point without losing those changes, test as many other other puppies as you like alongside in the same manner all without un/reinstalling... It really is the place to start.

And I agree 100% that the naming scheme has proven itself misleading... Seems like if "frugal install" became "puppy install" that would connect the dots for many... I see the point about backwards compatibility being painful.

Install Options:
Frugal/Full
Puppy/Legacy
Compressed/Monolithic
Magic/Mundane
Shiny/Insipid..... Ok, too far.

[wiak]

cobaka's part answer was by far the clearest and simplest:

With a 'full' installation the OS uses all the partition.

It's not a perfect answer but the major overall distinction. Unfortunately, there is no 'simple' answer to how a so-called 'frugal' installation works (there are many ways it can be done).

bigpup also added a useful detail about a full install:

Biggest benefit of full install is it uses less RAM to boot to working desktop

but with the caveat he also added:

it will take longer to start a program

since has to first be loaded in from slower storage media into actual memory (RAM). Though once program is in RAM it (or main parts of it) tend to be cached there for later use...

And most everyone agrees that biggest advantage of so-called 'frugal' installations is that it allows chunks of the operating system to be loaded and unloaded in easily, in modular fashion, via 'layering', which is conceptually much like building an image in a graphics editor program.

If above is too complex to understand for beginners, then understanding the difference between frugal and full install is too complex to explain to beginners...

As for the appropriate name for these alternative installation methodologies - I don't think the many name suggestions offered as alternatives to 'full' and 'frugal' are any clearer in themselves.

[Magellan]

I know this is an old thread, but I appreciate the explanations. I am reviving an old laptop for fun that has been laying around (Toshiba Portege 7020CT with 192Mb Ram). I initially went with full because when installing from a bootable USB drive, the description for full was it was for low memory or slow CPU. After reading this I re installed as Frugal and it runs much better.

[geo_c]

Full Partition Install - requires use and ownership of an entire partition (not recommended)
Folder Install - resides in a folder and exists comfortably alongside multiple OS's (standard method)