nominations for puppy on distrowatch

[bigpup]

dimkr says vanilla Dpup is not an official puppy
it is also on the waiting list at distrowatch

Well, I thought being an official version, built with Woof-CE, was no longer absolute, had to be.

Is it on the Distrowatch waiting list as a separate Linux OS?

Looking at the Distrowatch waiting list.
https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=links#new

Vanilla Dpup is listed recommended
When you click on it.
An info page pops up and it says it is a Puppy Linux version.
So, I am not sure how they are going to list it.

[Grey]

Because as soon as that 'new', 'official' Puppy is released, the community is going to expect them to continue maintaining & updating it. Are they prepared for that?

It seems to me that our community is at something of a crossroads, as far as 'official' development is concerned. Where, exactly, does the community go from here? Does anybody want to become an 'official' developer, with all the hard work that entails?

• 666philb may have decided he's had enough. (I wouldn't blame him; he has provided 4 very solid LTS-release 'buntu-derived Puppies over the last several years. He hasn't posted for around 6 months.)

That's right. It's one thing to make a version that is good for two years and quite another to constantly deal with it.

I can't speak for Phil, but maybe he, like me, doesn't know for sure if it's worth doing anything at all. If you make a "classic", people will say no changes. You will do "modern with pulse and whores" - they will say this is superfluous. Perhaps he is at a crossroads.

Puppy has a bus factor of 1

In Russia, the bus factor is called the "brick factor" (there are much more chances that a brick will fall on your head here than a bus will knock you down)

[wanderer]

well

as i said

instead of asking people to do work they may not want to
why dont we just take something that is already built and is being developed
and put it on the distrowatch page

i know voidpup is complex
but it is here now
and people are developing it because they want to

if someone finds its not for them
there are a ton of alternatives on the forum

i think its important to note on the distrowatch page
that the distro presented is just one of the many options in puppyworld
and they need to visit the forum to explore all the other possibilities

distrowatch only requires the distro be updated 1 time per year
so that will certainly buy us a little time

wanderer

[peebee]

Uploaded to:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/spup/f ... 5Pup32/RC/

Both
S15Pup32-22.11-RC.iso
&
slacko-8.2.2-264.iso

for comparison.............

Screenshot.png (118.09 KiB) Viewed 1656 times

[wanderer]

hi peebee

i have downloaded the S15 32 iso
ill load it up and check it out

wanderer

[rockedge]

I've recently built a Fossapup64-9.6 using the defaults and letting woof-CE do the rest. I made this one to compile kernels and other packages which it does relatively error free. One reason is the up to date certificates and the system is clean and using a fresh devx.

Now I am pretty impressed with Fossapup64-96 CE 's level of operational speed. And that it is running the latest greatest browsers installed, SFS or portable style is a real charmer.

It is my opinion that this Fossapup64-9.6-CE with some added polish and functionality could be a real candidate quickly. Same with SC15, it also with the right additions and polish will be part of a the dynamic duo.

VoidPup should be the Puppy cutting edge. Void Linux is developed by people from the world of BSD and UNIX, so those of us who learned to be mainframe sysop's and batch language coders (My only official computer training was for being an IBM mainframe's sysop and batch program coder) will recognize some of the system structures and methods of Void Linux. Somehow @peebee has captured the essence of Void Linux in what is a Puppy Linux by definition. I totally believe we take this advantage and RUN WITH IT.

So in summary for quick results: Push out a Fossapup64-9.6 with all those added little powerhouse utilities and menu conveniences that puts Puppy Linux really in the forefront. Hard for some to admit but the dev's know at ZoneMinder how well Puppy's can run "big boy" packages.

Run-in-a-terminal and those kind of little details needs to be hammered out. I am doing that now with lots of help with KLV. Adding those details and small but very powerful features. Kennel Linux will take anything from any distro that will make itself useful.

Other way is to replace the Fossapup with a JammyPup-CE version that under goes the same polish a nice fresh kernel and we'll grab some of @geo_c's theme/style/icon work and with some awesome Puppy style background, this type of distro could be the "face" of Puppy Linux for Distrowatch. Still SC15 should be considered to be included.

I bought the article in Linux magazine that was written about Puppy Linux. I thought it was pretty good.

[wanderer]

hi all

i have downloaded peebee's S15 pup 32
burned it to usb
and fired it up

i am posting from it now

looks very nice indeed

thank you peebee

wanderer

[mikeslr]

Written before I read rockedge's post:
My primary concern in this is that we should have a significant presence on Distro-Watch. Keep in mind there’s no rush. We’ve been dis-advantaged for so long that another month or so won’t make any substantial difference.

While watchdog’s idea has merit, I hesitate to support merely recycling ‘old puppys’. I think a better way to showcase Puppy would be a Community Edition. I know, off hand, that prior efforts have lead nowhere for some reason – likely our usual diversity of ideas leaving us in limbo. But I think there’s a way forward. All we really need is one person, or a couple co-operative people, familiar with Woof and willing to maintain that Community Puppy. You know who you are. I doubt ‘maintaining’ will be very demanding especially if the Puppy includes apt/synaptic while ‘older’ puppies already have been battle tested. The Community Puppy could be a remaster of the initial woof-build.

[I don’t know enough about Woof having only employed it once, recently, to create a ‘new’ Fossapup64. But during that process I noticed it downloaded packages then used the downloaded packages in creating the Puppy. I suspect that someone who actually knows how to script could effect a modification to include other packages such as the ones I’ll mention below. Either way, the Puppy would be a Remaster, rather than a straight-forward woof version].

The maintainer (team) would have ultimate authority. But many of us can contribute. For example, which wallpaper and other graphic elements would be the default could be their choice, but we have several talented designers –futwerk, geo_c, and sofia come immediately to mind-- whose work could be included.

I recommend that we accept dimkr’s offer to create a version forked from VanillaDpup. But either an updated Fossapup or even the less resource-demanding BionicPup has its merits. [Can a new Bionicpup still be woofed? With Bionic Beavers (not-extended) End of Life being less than a year away, should it not be considered?]. A newly Woofed fossapup would no more be a remaster of 666philb’s version than a woofed Slacko is a ‘cut-down’ version of Slackware. [Of course, 666philb’s insights and contributions would be welcomed].

As an example of what can be done consider my newly woofed Fossapup with it’s post-woof enhancements. A screenshot of my newly woofed Fossapup is here, viewtopic.php?p=69982#p69982. [And NO, the wallpaper can’t be used; it likely violates several copyrights]. As I wrote in that post, it boots and opens applications faster than the original; and this despite my ‘kind-of-remaster using nicOS-Utililty-Suites’s Save2SFS’ I discussed on this thread, viewtopic.php?p=69513#p69513 to include many of the tools designed for Puppy by radky, JakeSFS and others. [Someone with a higher skill level than I could provide a more visually-appealing dir2pet and dir2sfs; and remember to add JakeSFS’s packit to the Right-Click menu for folders]. I have recently swapped in ozsouth’s 5.19.11 kernel, viewtopic.php?t=6871. Such kernel includes security enhancements not found in Fossapup64’s original. And supports the use of both aufs and ovrelays. [I know next-to nothing about overlays, so can’t test]. I’m posting from it now. But read ozsouth’s post for possible limitations.

Not mentioned elsewhere:
radky’s JWMDesk (ptheming still present but its menu display turned off).
Barry K’s Osmo for EasyOS –supports Contacts-- one library via synaptic had to be added
Zigbert’s pwidgets
In the /opt folder in an easily update-able adrv –so that they can be used even with no partitions mounted-- MikeWalsh’s Brave Web-browser. So locating it uses RAM, but with 8 Gbs I have more than enough to spare. A user could, of course, run Brave from /mnt/home.
And an assortment of goodies created by Puppians and not available under any other Linux.

Assorted-Goodies.png (212.81 KiB) Viewed 1631 times

None of what I’ve included need be. But what we’d have is a newly woofed Puppy –perhaps built taking in mind our collective experience of what works-- but including applications nowhere else available.

P.S. If I didn't say so already, I'm posting from it now.

[wanderer]

hi all

what about peebee's new S15 pup 32

its here now

wanderer

[wizard]

@rockedge

Would it be appropriate to include Friendly-Fossa64 (also based on Fossapup) type expanded help files in a Fossapup64-9.6 submission? This would give new users the help they need to succeed right up front.

wizard

[amethyst]

hi all

what about peebee's new S15 pup 32

its here now

wanderer

I'm not a 64-bit Puppy user myself but I think the Puppy represented on Distrowatch should be a 64-bit Puppy. Just my personal view.

[Jasper]

Hi all

I don't feel very qualified to suggest a particular build of Puppy as I have only just begun to use it.

I only choose my particular build as it had the 64 in the title and when looking at the forum I could see that the subsection was active.

I did not realise that it was based on an older build of Ubuntu. Needless to say, it works for me which is the most important thing.

My only thought was should the proposed OS be a LTS kernel?

Info from a wikipage

[mikeslr]

wizard, I agree that including Friendly-Fossa64's expanded help files and its other user-friendly enhancements would be a good idea.

Another might be josejp2424's 'very Linux-Mint-like" version of Quickpet:

Screenshot(1).png (78.41 KiB) Viewed 1686 times

perhaps the latter to include xfe for those not yet ready to learn rox's quirks.

I may have mis-spoke before. Been playing with too many new Puppys. The newly woofed fossapup 9.6 does not have sysnaptic. I know pkg-clli is and I thought apt* is included ('though not on the menu). But dimkr did include synaptic in both Vanilla Upup and Dpup, and joseph2424 in devuan-chimaera. Having it immediately available could be a possibility or, at least, a future objective.

Peebee's Ubuntu Focal Fossa, http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/pu ... -20.12.htm, could be offered as a version for 32-bit systems; or any of his newer 32-bit 'ubuntu + debians'.
-=-=-=---
*pfind, finds an "apt", but it doesn't respond. pkg-cli is not configured to utilize fossapup's reposes, something which can be done, but I haven't. So I used PPM, then PaDS to construct a synaptic SFS including apt and all their dependencies. The built SFS was only 4208 Kbs. ListDD finds no missing depedencies. But it doesn't work. Trying to start it from the terminal --the executive id'd in /usr/share/applications/synaptic.desktop being 'synaptic-pkexec" -- reports:
"Error getting authority: Error initializing authority: Error calling StartServiceByName for org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1:"
And synaptic employs the python framework. Figuring out what to do is 'above my paygrade'.

Writing the above reminded me of the need to install application employing python. So I repacked as a pet and installed. Now I get a GUI, which starting via a terminal terminates immediately, but not before providing the following information

Synaptic.png (66.72 KiB) Viewed 1642 times

and a terminal report "lsb_release: command not found".
Still above my paygrade.

[wiak]

dimkr says vanilla Dpup is not an official puppy
it is also on the waiting list at distrowatch

Is it on the Distrowatch waiting list as a separate Linux OS?

Looking at the Distrowatch waiting list.
https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=links#new

Vanilla Dpup is listed recommended
When you click on it.
An info page pops up and it says it is a Puppy Linux version.

It is already there so you can in a sense run with it. But problem with it is that if dimkr does not want it as an official Puppy Linux distribution, then it isn't. Many distros are built with underlying upstream system, but are not official. For example, Manjaro is Arch underneath but isn't Arch Linux official. Currently, Vdpup is listed on main Puppy Linux website under category 'Unofficial' - so kind of like a Manjaro situation - i.e. flavour of Puppy Linux but not developed by Puppy Linux team - rather it is developed by a different team, which currently is dimkr alone as far as I know.

Manjaro exists and is developed (similarly EndeavourOS), but so is Arch Linux. If only Vdpup was being developed/listed on Distrowatch then effectively there is no actual Puppy Linux itself being listed - just a fork/flavour or it. An official Puppy Linux distro needs to be identified for continuation of Puppy Linux itself on Distrowatch. A single distro needs to be focussed on to get that process restarted.

A slight offtopic: Just noticed a Puppy-sized distro newly on Distrowatch: https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distr ... =peropesis (iso size 156MB)
However, its size arises from it being commandline only, but interesting nonetheless for compiling point of view and (already a live distro) could certainly be firstrib-ed and no doubt puppified.

[wanderer]

hi all

so do we have a list of candidates for the distrowatch page

wanderer

[Grey]

A slight offtopic: Just noticed a Puppy-sized distro newly on Distrowatch: https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distr ... =peropesis (iso size 156MB)
However, its size arises from it being commandline only, but interesting nonetheless for compiling point of view and (already a live distro) could certainly be firstrib-ed and no doubt puppified.

https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic. ... 077#p70077

It's an incomplete system, but

If it is possible to host an "incomplete" system, then we can simply "flood and overflow" the DW in the future

[wanderer]

well

i dont know what else is ready

but im running peebee's S15 pup 32 now

and its ready to go

i know amethyst feels it should be a 64 bit
but i dont agree
a 64 bit can be added later

why dont we put that up on the distrowatch page now

wanderer

[wanderer]

ok guys

listen up

our distrowatch page is in violation as we speak
they has given us a short reprieve
but the page can be made dormant at any time

.

a few moments ago we did not have a candidate to submit

now we have a perfect candidate

S15 pup 32 by peebee

i am using it now (and it looks marvelous)

it is new (latest slackware)

it is a classic puppy built with woof-ce

it was even suggested by the grand puppymaster emeritus himself barry k

peebee i assume has approved it since he has posted it on this thread

i also assume that he has tacitly agree to help develop it

.

let us put it on the distrowatch page immediately

at least to keep the page up

it will not need to be updated for 1 year

.

i am asking for approval from the puppy community to send it to jesse at distrowatch

.

please post on this thread and vote yes

.

we will continue the discussion about the puppy roadmap on this thread

and decide what our next steps are when we have the leisure of our distrowatch page being in compliance

.

wanderer

[rockedge]

Only 32 bit? That would be a mistake. The demand for 32 bit systems is small and we would because of haste, limit Puppy Linux overall immensely.

We need a 64 bit distro to lead the way. 32 bit is all fine and good but reality is what it is.

[ozsouth]

S15-32 looks good & so long as a 64bit version follows soon (next month), I vote for it. Especially as time is of the essence.
I just am troubled by the idea of making our flagship something based on an outdated base system. They are great for personal & forum use though.

[geo_c]

ADDED: Anyone who needs extra bling, here's the 'tbox' as discussed below: https://mega.nz/file/7f4ViIJD#NhAt6rCmp ... DsOYkE5XVk (note this link updated 2022.10.31-10.27)

The compressed archive is 127M, pretty good for the volume of bling involved. As discussed below there are three directories gtkFOSSA, gtkKLV, gtkXFCE which contain links to the themes that are compatible with those desktops, respectively. To use symply link the links to the desired location, /usr/share/themes for fossa, /root/.themes for KLV.

...and we'll grab some of @geo_c's theme/style/icon work and with some awesome Puppy style background, this type of distro could be the "face" of Puppy Linux for Distrowatch.

It's arrived, and It'll be called: tbox

The "tbox" is a directory full of puppy standard set icons, gtk2, 3 and 4 themes (all vetted in fossapup and KLV), jwm-themes, desktop backgrounds, xfwm4 window manager themes, and dark high-contrast mime-icons, It resides in one well organized directory. All of my pups point to the files with symlinks, so it's not necessary to bulk up a save folder. I'm hopeful that this will be a valuable resource, and potentially become a central pup theming library.

It contains:
50 gtk2 themes
86 gtk2/3 themes
34 gtk3/4 themes
54 sets of pup standard icons (15 are my uchrome creations)
45 jwm themes
20 jwm button themes
122 desktop backgrounds

Also something that should be a time saver for people: I've tested the gtk themes out in fossapup and created a folder in the tbox called gtkFOSSA, in that folder are symlinks to the various gtk themes that work well, both gtk3 and gtk4. So instead of symlinking the themes from their original organizational folder, it will be simply a one step procedure in rox to symlink those themes linked in the gtkFOSSA folder, over to /usr/share/themes. Works wonderfully. I have a similar folder for Xfce, and I can load these themes and test them in any pup/distro to create similar folders. Doing that will allow me to create install scripts. But for those who know how to symlink, developers in particular, the folder labeled with their particular distro will contain links to all the themes in the library known to work with that distro.

I'll get it up on MegaCloud soon.

[Grey]

and with some awesome Puppy style background,

I made the background back in the spring (maybe not awesome, but not bad and in the subject ), but I didn't finish the Jammy itself because of one PPM glitch (Phil didn't show up either). Perhaps if the background is made in advance, it curses the system and imposes an evil eye

[amethyst]

Personally I would put a Puppy on Distrowatch which has been around for a while and has been used and tested thoroughly by many users. Now some want to quickly assemble a new candidate and put it up as flagship without even thoroughly being tested first by the community and approved for being stable and without flaws. Should definitely be a 64-bit candidate.

[ozsouth]

@amethyst - one could certainly make a good case for Bionic64 - thoroughly tested & popular. I even made a security update .pet for it a fortnight ago (wget/openssl/curl). But it's been on Distrowatch before, so may not be eligible. Also the base is 4.5 years old and may not get ubuntu updates for much longer. @rockedge's new Fossa64 is definitely worth considering too. I guess I thought our flagship needed to be new hence after trying s15pup32, I support it. The time constraint is a real bind.

[amethyst]

@amethyst - one could certainly make a good case for Bionic64 - thoroughly tested & popular. I even made a security update .pet for it a fortnight ago (wget/openssl/curl). But it's been on Distrowatch before, so may not be eligible. Also the base is 4.5 years old and may not get ubuntu updates for much longer. @rockedge's new Fossa64 is definitely worth considering too. I guess I thought our flagship needed to be new hence after trying s15pup32, I support it. The time constraint is a real bind.

It can be (and should be rather new) but properly tested first in my view.

[dimkr]

I have an alternative to propose:

1. Declare woof-CE as the new "official" Puppy
2. Start a stable branch of woof-CE and tag a new release from it (say, 10.0)
3. Backport select bugfixes to this branch (equivalent to the woof-CE branch Vanilla Dpup is built from) as they're merged into latest woof-CE
4. Tag a new minor release every once in a while (10.1, 10.2 ...), which include nothing but those extra fixes
5. On every minor release, create releases for all build configurations in the table at https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... py-builder (or just a subset) and use the woof-CE version as their version

[amethyst]

I have an alternative to propose:

1. Declare woof-CE as the new "official" Puppy
2. Start a stable branch of woof-CE and tag a new release from it (say, 10.0)
3. Backport select bugfixes to this branch (equivalent to the woof-CE branch Vanilla Dpup is built from) as they're merged into latest woof-CE
4. Tag a new minor release every once in a while (10.1, 10.2 ...), which include nothing but those extra fixes
5. On every minor release, create releases for all build configurations in the table at https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... py-builder (or just a subset) and use the woof-CE version as their version

You have my vote.

[ozsouth]

@dimkr - looks a good way forward. I think something like that was BK's original plan for woof. How about you roll off an iso that's components are sufficiently tested (not bleeding edge) as a candidate for wanderer's pressing task?

[amethyst]

@dimkr - looks a good way forward. I think something like that was BK's original plan for woof. How about you roll off an iso that's components are sufficiently tested (not bleeding edge) as a candidate for wanderer's pressing task?

I second that. dimkr is probably in the best position to do this, if he is willing...

[peebee]

I can probably make S15Pup64 from ScPup64 fairly quickly now that I've done S15Pup32

The real PITA is that Samba has to be recompiled to match the older libs in Slackware-15.0.....