Puppy Linux CE proposal.

[Jadm]

Hello everyone ! I'm not sure how many long term puppy linux users are left but some of you may remember me from the old forum I from way back ( puppy Linux 3.?? if I remember ) I haven't been active in the community since about the time we found out about the passing of John murgia.
Since I have been gone I have started (and almost finished) an associates degree in computer science. I'm thinking I can finally make a really nice puppy Linux release.im proposing a new community edition with some massive changes. Below is a list of proposed changes, some of which I believe are critical for puppies survival at this point. ( Numbers 1 ,1.5 , and 2 are MUST does at this point, in my opinion any ways)
Proposed changes:
1) ppm/ pkg needs to be replaced

1.5) update or overall the ppm gui to reflect #1

2) re- write or over hall the installer.

3) replace jwm with a more modern desktop environment.

4 disable default root.

4.5 make puppy multi user.

Reasons:

1) ppm's replacement -
is far too large of a project for us as a community at current numbers to maintain at this point.

1.5) kind of obvious, but we need a gui pkg management to match the renewal of puppy package management.

2) I have noticed several errors in the current installer thus I feel like this MUST be done.

3) While I like the classic puppy look and feel, it is very very dated. I believe if we want to attract new users and hopefully maintainers we need something more modern.

4) with the amount of trolls on the internet these days, and the lack of current puppy Linux maintainers to help help new users I feel like a default root is wrong to have for so many reasons. To list a few though, security, system stability ( we all know the rm - R # # command here... Parts replaced with # on purpose I'm not helping the trolls.) I feel like an easy access to root should be kept though ( for old time puppy users .. )

4.5) once we make puppy non-root by default it kinda just makes sense to have multi user support ... People can name their accounts and give their own passwords instead of "spot" and "woof-woof"... Which kinda goes back to the trolls/ security of #4.

Proposed fixes

1)replace pkg/ppm with apt/ dpkg ( this would allow us to fully piggy back off ubuntu.)

1.5) rewrite or completely over hall the current ppm gui.
2) already said but re write overvhall the puppy Linux installer, and only include one.

3) replace jvm with mate and theme it similar to Mac pup see pic bellow. * I do feel like a menu bar at the top and a few puppy icons would be great.

4&4.5) install and set the light display manager, and possibly re work some scripts If / when something dose not work.

I'm pretty sure I'm now skilled enough to handle most if not all of this, but I want suggestions from the community. ( It would be nice if a more experienced and up to date puppy Linux maintainer would be great).

This seems like a really long post so to recap I'm basically proposing a new puppy C.E (community Edition) for daily use on more modern hardware available for 64 bit and hopefully eventually arm. (while others would still maintain a more "classic" puppy.) I mean I'm going to. Honest and say this seems like a lot of work but I think I can do it with the help from the community. Does any one else have any other ideas they would like to see in the community edition.

This is not a final list of changes I want feed back from the community!

I do feel like I should give a disclaimer that I haven't made a custom puppy since version 4.0, and it wasn't a very good one. My puppy skills have gotten rusty, but my over all skills have improved a lot. This seems like a really large under taking but I'm hopeful that I can make it happen .

[backi]

Nice Idea @Jadm !

But why reinventing the Wheel ?

1)replace pkg/ppm with apt/ dpkg ( this would allow us to fully piggy back off ubuntu.)

Have a look here (in Case you did not before) .

Dog House:
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewforum.php?f=22

Ubuntu Dogs :
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewforum.php?f=58

Debian Dogs:
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewforum.php?f=46

But don`t get me wrong ......
This is not meant to discourage/demotivate you or anyone else....in any Way.

Best Wishes !

[rockedge]

@Jadm Congratulations!! A degree in computer science is a good achievement.

This is the right place for you! There is a lot of work going into the latest generation of Puppy Linux and some are already going in the directions you mention.

Get your self familiar with basics and it would be a good idea to get familiar with GitHub and how that works so woof-CE can be a powerful tool at your disposal.

Looking forward to your ideas, contributions and fresh energy. Welcome aboard.

[tosim]

@Jadm Hey guy, good to see you again. Congrats on the degree, and looking forward to your inputs here.

[mikeslr]

@ Jadm

Congratulations & Welcome back. Don’t take the following as a criticism, just primarily as a re-orientation.

Puppy Linux today is not the Puppy Linux you knew. Most of what you suggest has already been addressed in some way, or at least considered. The skills you’ve developed could be of great benefit to the community, are badly needed, and I think you will find using themn to further develop Puppy Linux to be fun and rewarding.

About 10 years ago –I think in contemplation of his retirement-- Barry Kauler created ‘woof, the Puppy Builder’. Rather than having to compile everything from scratch, woof is an application which makes use of the binaries of other distros to create a Puppy. Using Puppy Package Manager, that Puppy has direct access to its ‘binary-compatible’ distro's repositories. In theory, any distro can serve as the source. In practice, primarily Slackware, debian, Ubuntu and most recently Void have been used to create Puppys. And that’s complications enough.

64-bit operating systems have become the norm and while debian, void and Puppy, itself, continue to publish 32-bit operating systems --32-bit Puppys binary compatible to recent Ubuntus have to include some debian binaries-- 32-bit Web-browsers have become ‘few and far-between’. But when Slackware, debian and Ubuntu were still publishing both 32-bit and 64-bit OSes, decisions had to be made as to (a) whether an OS should support both (=multi-architecture) and (b) what to do with keeping 32-bit and 64-bit libraries having the identical name separate. debian and --since Ubuntu is a branded debian-- Ubuntu chose to keep ‘no-arch’ libraries in /lib, /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib but to locate specifically 32-bit libraries in folders named /i386-linux-gnu and specifically 64-bit libraries in folders named x86_64-linux-gnu.

Slackware, on the other hand, locates specifically 64-bit libraries in folders named /lib64.

If 64bit Puppys were to be woofed from either Slackware or debian/Ubuntu, woof had to be able to manage both circumstances. As far as I know, all 64-bit Puppys can recognize folders named /lib64. None –with the possible except of FatDog-- can recognize folders named x86_64-linux-gnu. Consequently, under debian/ubuntu binary-compatible Puppys x86_64-linux-gnu are symbolic links to their respective parent lib folders. [FatDog is mult-archectecture but uses a unique version of woof: which tells me that the main versions of woof could be modified produce multi-arch 64-bit Puppys].

[Before creating Woof, Barry K published a Puppy which, rather than compiling from scratch, made use of Slackware binaries. My wild guess –I don’t speak any computer language-- is that Slackware’s structure influenced the original version of woof and that has been carried into its later evolution].

For Puppys to continue to use applications designed for the debian/ubuntu structure, ITSMERSH published an application which automated the conversion to Puppys’ structure.

I don’t code. Don’t ask me why none of the following was, or could not be, done:

A top-level code defining x86_64-linux-gnu as an alias for lib64, or vice-versa
Modification of woof to create mulit-arch Puppys
Modification of Puppy Package Manager to automatically convert debian/ubutu packages to slackware/puppy structure, or vice-versa.

Instead, multiple versions of woof have to be maintained.

Recently, Ubuntu –and I think Slackware but not debian-- have thrown another monkey-wrench into OS creation and maintenance: mere users can no longer create applications which place libraries in the top level lib folder: they must use the /usr/lib folder [or under Puppy, sometimes, its unique /root/my-applications/lib folder].

Puppy has had to respond to the fact that new computers now employ the UEFI boot-mechanism. Perhaps this involves the Puppy Installer error you mentioned. Newer Puppys now include Frugal-Installer and/or grub2config. These can be installed if absent. Puppy Installer should be phased out.

The Forum now is also a home for ‘Debian Dogs’: true debians and ubuntus OSes built from, AFAIK, net-installs. It is also home to wiak's Kennel-Linux, a portable operating system similar to Puppys but, rather than employing woof, is created by its own, unique scripts.

While woof still generates Puppys employing jwm as Window-Manager and rox as File-Manager, there are Puppys using xfce-thunar, and various Lx-Openbox with various file-managers. There’s even been a Puppy using Mate. Additionally, there are ‘addon’ SFSes which can be used with most Puppys to provide the Lx- alternatives. But you should also know that radky has developed applications (JWMDesk and PupControl) installable into any jwm-rox Puppy giving it the look, feel and IMHO user-friendliness not unlike Linux-Mint’s.

The debian dogs and some Puppys offer apt and/or apt+synaptic as package managers. Additionally, Sc0ttman developed pkg-cli (now being maintained and further developed by mistfire). It is an application that can be used in any Puppy providing a package manager not unlike apt.

Not running as Root has NEVER provided more security; only the appearance of such. Anyone with the skills to hack your OS also has the skills to obtain Administrative rights.

Responding to the increasing threats to security, Puppy has always enabled web-facing application to run as spot, a limited user. I’ve done some exploration in this area. spot is as effective as firejams [which means denying access but not identification]. Some web-facing applications under Puppy now have to be run as Spot. An experienced hacker can elevate his/her limited permission to that of Administrator.

EasyOS –a puppy ‘derivative’ maintained by Barry Kauler, himself-- runs web-browsers, any application, and even entire operating systems in a container. Any Puppy can be used to run another operating system, including its web-browser(s) in a chroot. Both such systems preclude threats from ever reaching one’s MainOS.

But all Puppys can be run in as secure a manner. Puppys are modularly built, see https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=5818 and https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=6526. On boot-up it copies some of its READ-ONLY system-files into RAM and only mounts its SaveFile/Folder (used to preserve settings, customizations and user-installed applications). But amethyst has provided a tool (Save2SFS) which will capture those user-additions into a READ-ONLY system-file also copied into RAM on boot-up. On shut-down RAM is cleared. On reboot, you again have a pristine system. If booted from a USB-Key, the Key can be unplugged after boot-up. If booted from a hard-drive partition, that partition is dismounted after boot-up. [How do you infect an operating system which isn’t there?].

For anyone, customizing your personal Puppy is fun. There are plenty of opportunities for someone with coding skills to build on Puppy's capabilities especially in regard to perfecting woof. And I think you'd get a kick out of exploring wiak's Kennel-linux.

[stevie pup]

If we look at reviews of Puppy, and pros and cons, something that is often mentioned in the "cons" is the lack of software choice. We're not all clever enough to make our own .pet or portable for our preferred software, so we use what's available. Unfortunately this sometimes makes me feel like I'm "making do", and is one reason why I don't use Puppy all the time, and use other distros. So yes, doing something with the PPM is definitely a good idea.

As for installation, well, you've only got to look through this forum to see how many people have problems with it. I did myself when trying to install Fossa, which I managed to sort out eventually but it took a while and I'm still not sure how I did it!

The other things mentioned I don't really have much issue with.

[wiak]

It is also home to wiak's Kennel-Linux, a portable operating system similar to Puppys but, rather than employing woof, is created by its own, unique scripts.

That's not quite correct. My build system is called FirstRib build system and the special longtime overlayfs initrd that is part of that is FirstRib initrd. Variants of that are likely to be offered off-site. Whilst it is true that, for example, rockedge's KLV-Airedale adopted FirstRib build system to produce its root filesystem and FR overlayfs initrd to boot it, to make any Kennel Linux distro he could have used any build system and root filesystem he wished to. Kennel Linux is an area that makes no attempt to separate distro-type in terms of forum distro project 'purity'; that's probably the main point of the .Kennel Linux designation.

In the case of KLV-Airedale, a large part of the resulting build is thanks to utilities from fredx181, many of which come from DebianDog designs, some maybe partly from Puppy. I believe rockedge also uses quite a large number of parts/utilities from Puppy Linux. Indeed KLV-Airedale is able to use most any Puppy Linux kernel, modules and firmware also. KLA does exactly that (the iso is released with vdpup kernel, modules. firmware by default but booted with FR initrd) and various releases of KLV-Airedale benefited from such use too. It was rockedge's choice, but he could have tried to build KLV-Airedale using Puppy initrd, or perhaps even woof-ce, though the latter probably didn't suit his purposes of what he wanted KLV-Airedale to be able to do; he still could have made a design based on a probably modified version of Puppy initrd (giving adrv, fdr, zdrv, ydrv and so on), but without necessarily using woof-CE for the root filesystem.

[mikewalsh]

Hi, @Jadm . And back to the "kennels".

Hm. Well, I think Mikeslr has pretty well covered - or addressed - many of your concerns. I must say, I think your computer science degree, obtained in a more 'modern' climate, appears to have resulted in your absorbing the overweening horror at, and fear that the mainstream community have of running as root. Mike's quite right, I feel; running as as a limited permissions user is no guarantee that your Linux experience will be any safer - certainly not for those who know what they're doing - though of course, it's a valuable second line of defense for noobs in addition to the general permissions system extant in Linux as a whole.

I've always felt that THIS is a good 'read', though I must of course qualify my endorsement of it by adding that it WAS written well over a decade ago, before the rise of ransomware and the determination by bad threat actors to milk the global computer community for every penny it can yield!

Your contributions will be valuable to the community as a whole, though MY only concern would be that Puppy should manage to maintain its uniqueness, and not disappear into oblivion as just another lightweight distro, set up to run in EXACTLY the same way as every other distro on the market. We do of course need to "move with the times", and to respond as best we can to the current climate we find ourselves in.

Never forget that the Puppy community is endowed with some extremely clever - and 'savvy' - boys & girls. I shall watch your progress with interest.

Again, welcome back.

Mike.

[mikewalsh]

If we look at reviews of Puppy, and pros and cons, something that is often mentioned in the "cons" is the lack of software choice. We're not all clever enough to make our own .pet or portable for our preferred software, so we use what's available. Unfortunately this sometimes makes me feel like I'm "making do", and is one reason why I don't use Puppy all the time, and use other distros. So yes, doing something with the PPM is definitely a good idea.

As for installation, well, you've only got to look through this forum to see how many people have problems with it. I did myself when trying to install Fossa, which I managed to sort out eventually but it took a while and I'm still not sure how I did it!

The other things mentioned I don't really have much issue with.

@stevie pup :-

Yes, I can understand where you're coming from. Most Linux users expect - quite rightly! - to simply use their supplied package manage to install everything they could want or need. It's always been an issue with Puppy, mainly due to the fact of Puppy utilising the repos of whatever its 'parent' distro happens to be, yet at the same time not quite being able to always use them directly, as-is, without the need to have to modify them in some way.

I know this HAS been a "make-or-break" issue for many over the years. But to create & maintain a set of repos for Puppy, keeping them up-to-date, would be a full-time commitment for at least 2 or 3 individuals. I just don't think the community is big enough to support that kind of operation, nor do I think we have anybody prepared to commit themselves to such a permanent, full-time undertaking.....

Mike.

[Jadm]

After reading everyone's comments I believe the community would like to take a slightly different approach ( and after thinking about it I agree) below is my revised plan:

1) Pkg should stay.

2) instead of mate use flux box with an option for jwm pre-installed. ( One of the older puppy releases has a similar set up with icewm if I remember).

3) The default root should stay, but maybe we should make the option to use Spot more appealing.

So to make Pkg work "better" I had a really good idea ( I'm not 100% it will work but I think it will.. ) instead of replacing Pkg with apt I could write a "pseudo apt" basically a fake "apt" that would call Pkg to do what apt would do... I'm not sure if It will ever full replicate apt, but for basic install, un install I think it should be rather easy (I have been wrong in the past though ) .

Also thank you guys for the constructive criticism. It really made me think about why I like puppy to begin with. For me it's the simplicity of it all, and I believe that's the same for a lot of us, and you all are right things like mate, restricted root, and mandatory log in screens would take that away :/ .

Also thank you everyone for the new info sounds like I missed a LOT. That's a good thing though, it means progress.

Obviously I'm still going to try to fix the issues with the installer, and the software center.

Has anyone else noticed anything that is extremely "broken" in the last few releases?

Any thing some one would like puppy to do that it can't currently do ?

One last thought I would like every ones input on. I really think changing puppy's looks could help us a lot. know puppy has used jwm from the beginning . With one acception to my knowledge, one official release used icewm, but I could have missed a few. I don't want to change puppy to its not recognizable, but I would also like to improve it's looks. Any ideas ?

[stevie pup]

Regarding installation I'm going to have to make a comparison with other Linux distros. With the majority of other distros the procedure for installing is, as I guess most of you know, as follows:

1) Boot up the live USB
2) Click on the "install" icon on the desktop
3) Follow whatever comes up on screen
4) That's it, all done!

Now if you could get Puppy to do that it would be brilliant.

I can fully understand why the installation thing can put some people off. I must admit I've become somewhat idle in my old age, and can't always be bothered to spend a lot of time messing around with things. Let's say there's something I want to do and I try it on two different distros. One of them it works straight out of the box, but on the other it could work but it's going to take a lot of changes. Which one am I going to use?

Good luck with everything anyway.

[mikewalsh]

@Jadm :-

Um.....yeah. I agree with the sentiments about Puppy's appearance.

Yes, it IS rather dated - the basic 'layout' hasn't changed much since, what; the 3-series/early 4-series? I assume we're here talking about the 'official' releases, which are what the general public will access/download from the main website, yes? Obviously, once they're able to access the Forums, they can look around and see what IS available (and there's a big variety).

The 'kicker' here is that for a Puppy to be termed as 'official', it MUST be reproducible from the Woof-CE build system at GitHub. So any official changes to its appearance have to be committed and added to the build-system in the appropriate places, using the appropriate tools. (And no; don't ask me how it works, 'cos I haven't got a clue..!)

The other fly in the ointment, I think, is that in order to remain true to its roots, Puppy needs to remain 'lightweight'. No, it's nowhere near as lean as earlier Pups, but apps/dependencies have all grown in size over the years; yet it's still much smaller than the dimensions mainstream distros have managed to 'bloat' to. Because of this, your choice of desktop utilities/tools/widgets is immediately somewhat curtailed, due to having to adhere to size considerations. JWM/Rox still offers the most flexible combination, I feel, yet Radky's brilliant JWM Desk Manager HAS taken a lot of the pain out of setting it all up.

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

When all's said & done, appearance/layout/theming, etc., IS a very personal choice. @geo_c , myself, and several others here regularly customize the hell out of our Pups; to look at them, you'd never recognize them AS Puppies at all.

My own tastes in icons, for instance, run more to the Windows Vista era, when icons had some substance to them; shadows, highlights, 3D-like appearance, etc., and they actually looked like summat "recognizable", y'know? Personally, I absolute loathe the current, modern fad for the "flat-look"; I can't conceive of anything more dull, depressing and uninspiring. But hey! that's just me.... "Different strokes for different folks", an' all that jazz....

A lifetime of interest in graphic design might just have summat to do wi' it!

Here's where I'm currently at:-

[Click to enlarge:-]

Phil B's Xenialpup 7.5 (32-bit).....but posting this from the current Puppy-portable release of 64-bit Opera, courtesy of peebee's '64-bit compatibility' SFS package.....a kind of 'inversion' of what 64-bit Pups have had for years, the '32-bit compatibility libs' SFS (this is Puppy's answer to mainstream 'multilib'). Peebee's recent brainwave uses a 64-bit kernel and this SFS; you swap your 32-bit kernel for a 64-bit one (easy with the current modular build system), boot, load the SFS package on-the-fly, and then you can run any of my 64-bit portable browser packages straight off the bat from inside a 32-bit Puppy.......without any messing about.

Brilliant system. Some of my all-time favourite Puppies remain, to this day, 32-bit variants, though up-to-date 32-bit browsers are becoming hard to find. This gives Puppians access to modern 64-bit browsers (and other stuff!), without having to install a 64-bit Puppy. Now tell me Puppians aren't innovative.....hmm?

Mike.

[rockedge]

Regarding installation I'm going to have to make a comparison with other Linux distros. With the majority of other distros the procedure for installing is, as I guess most of you know, as follows:

1) Boot up the live USB
2) Click on the "install" icon on the desktop
3) Follow whatever comes up on screen
4) That's it, all done!

Now if you could get Puppy to do that it would be brilliant.

It is a good goal and one that has been shot at since Puppy Linux exists. One difference is Puppy Linux was designed to be a Linux distro that could live on Windows machines and their NTFS partitions or other fully installed Linux distro's. So the concept of an Operating system in a sub directory on storage that ranges from FAT32/NTFS to ext2/3/4 formatted drives. This we call a "Frugal Install". There are several tools on Puppy Linux systems that will do auto-installation of Puppy Linux when the parameters required are present. Most Linux LiveCD installations just wipe the target drive clear of data and partition it to suite it's needs. This of course removes everything.

Puppy Linux was designed to be able, as is, be placed in a sub-directory on an existing partition and if it isn't a Linux friendly format, still provide persistence. That is without the installation mentality that a distro needs a complete partition or as in Window's case, multiple partitions.

It is easy to wipe a drive, format it and copy the file system structure when It's a fresh drive or 2. So it is a bit more complicated installing Puppy automatically especially when dealing with Secure Boot and UEFI machines and having Puppy Linux exist side by side with a full installed Linux or WindowsXX.

[dogcat]

This

Regarding installation I'm going to have to make a comparison with other Linux distros. With the majority of other distros the procedure for installing is, as I guess most of you know, as follows:

1) Boot up the live USB
2) Click on the "install" icon on the desktop
3) Follow whatever comes up on screen
4) That's it, all done!

Now if you could get Puppy to do that it would be brilliant.

It is a good goal and one that has been shot at since Puppy Linux exists. One difference is Puppy Linux was designed to be a Linux distro that could live on Windows machines and their NTFS partitions or other fully installed Linux distro's. So the concept of an Operating system in a sub directory on storage that ranges from FAT32/NTFS to ext2/3/4 formatted drives. we call a "Frugal Install". There are several tools on Puppy Linux systems that will do auto-installation of Puppy Linux when the parameters required are present. Most Linux LiveCD installations just wipe the target drive clear of data and partition it to suite it's needs. This of course removes everything.

Puppy Linux was designed to be able, as is, be placed in a sub-directory on an existing partition and if it isn't a Linux friendly format, still provide persistence. That is without the installation mentality that a distro needs a complete partition or as in Window's case, multiple partitions.

It is easy to wipe a drive, format it and copy the file system structure when It's a fresh drive or 2. So it is a bit more complicated installing Puppy automatically especially when dealing with Secure Boot and UEFI machines and having Puppy Linux exist side by side with a full installed Linux or WindowsXX.

Those are very good, clearly written points that still apply. There is no simple one size fits all approach for a Puppy Linux installation that was designed and still tries to live side by side with Microsoft in spite of all the road blocks encountered from Microsoft that attempt to prevent that.

Installing and using Puppy Linux is not like the other Linux distributions. Puppy Linux permits you to do things other Linux versions do not permit. Remember that history continually repeats and that new users come to Puppy Linux many times simply because it can reside with Microsoft on the same drive.

[rockedge]

@Jadm I use several package managers including APT. I find Pkg and Pkg2 can do about as much as APT can. Try in a terminal : pkg help and check it out. And Pkg and PPM communicate. APT is stand alone and then it's basically a Debian distro. DebianDog and UbuntuDog and Vanilla Dpup use APT as has been mentioned before. @wiak has in the past developed an experimental SFS addon that supplied APT with both Pkg and PPM still fully functional. That project has not matured past the experimental stage but the idea works great in the test Fossapup64-9.5 I have the SFS loaded in.

[mikewalsh]

@dogcat :-

Well said, mate. Yes, Puppy does take a bit more organising for whatever type of install you want......but once you've performed that install, she's capable of pulling amazing stunts and running rings round mainstream Linux distros, in ways some of 'em couldn't begin to imagine. Which all fits in very neatly with her essentially 'hobbyist' nature, even though that 'nature' is in some cases the very thing that drives some potential new users away.

At the end of the day, the old saw remains as true as ever.......use whatever 'works' for YOU. And stuff what anybody else might think.

Mike.

[workingdog]

Hi all.

This is my first post. jadm's suggestions prompted me to join.

By way of background I could not code to save my life, unless a='hello world' counts. On this basis alone you would have good reason to dismiss my comments on the issues raise by jadm But then give me some credit for finally figuring out the 'I'm not a robot' clue to get site access. I even googled ways to solve diameter, being radius, area and circumference.

I've used Puppy from a USB for about 15 years, for all my internet activity and office work. It is great not waiting for updates or having to buy virus checkers etc. I use Windows on a stand alone desktop machine, for ease of loading computer aided design (CAD) programs pulled off the net by via Puppy - its only been connected to the internet a couple of times to get dependency files for CAD. I went down the open source pathway when my small format floppy disks containing my office software (Word/Excel) failed - given I had a Microsoft license agreement (not pirated) I thought I could get the disks replaced for cost of new disks and handling, but no, I had to get a new license and pay full retail again. Now I use Open Office with Puppy Linux and am truly thankful to Microsoft for the 'push'.

From my point of view, with a loose understanding of how things might work, resource allocation in order of priority:

1) application packages.

2) 'under the bonnet' code vulnerabilities, code efficiency etc.

3) Woof CE documentation, if Woof is still relevant? Need 'Woof for Idiots' book, including creating SFS's and Pets. Written by expert users.

4) PPM, if it really needs it. Maybe people know of better options. I find the PPM generally OK to use. Any issues in the current PPM are around the actual packages ie versions old, lost dependencies. I thought the Linux community were working on a uniform package management system to rival Windows *.exe system. Do SFS and Pet standards mean a Linux community standard will not work for Puppy Linux, ie the Ubuntu packages are unusable, or Ubuntu will not entertain holding SFS?Pet files in contravention of a uniform standard?

I am more than happy with a plain desktop with side pop up menu ie Xenial

Keep acting as root. Seen many for and against arguments. Windows can keep the parental control models and 'user' accounts, any kid worth their salt will figure an alternative. Maybe Puppy should be marketed 'only suitable for 18 years and older' to attract more users.

In broad terms security is paramount. From the point of a general novice user, who has a seniors card, and rambles a bit, here are some frustrations:

- is Puppy still considered a leading secure OS? Need a comparison chart for other OS. For example I recently looked up Tails OS on Wikipedia which uses TOR (not overly important to me) and RAM (like Puppy) but again how secure is the OS compared to Puppy? Interestingly in 2014 the NSA said their surveillance system sets a threat flag for anyone who searches for Tails - not sure this is just because it uses TOR or because the OS itself does not have an NSA backdoor, or both. See Tails on Wikipedia to raise your own threat flag.

- I tried reading directions on using Woof CE but instructions seem very scant. As said way above, really need a comprehensive 'Woof for Idiots' guide.

- Barry has his EasyOS. Should Puppy users jump to EasyOS?

[dimkr]

need a comprehensive 'Woof for Idiots' guide.

What's wrong with these two?

https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... -on-GitHub
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... /README.md

Documentation exists and the build process of the latest Puppy releases (S15Pup, VoidPup, Vanilla Dpup) is automated and reproducible, so even if you make mistakes during your use of woof-CE, you have a "last known good" state to return to.

[workingdog]

Just (skim) reading threads posted while I was composing my last post.

Jadm asked 'Has anyone else noticed anything that is extremely "broken" in the last few releases?'

Wireless connectivity.

A story.

Went to a large white goods vendor looking for new laptop. I said I want to make sure Puppy Linux boots, and I may want to make a couple of changes to BIOS. To my surprise the guy said no problems as he is a software engineer, he uses Ubuntu on his personal laptop to view and interact with the store systems etc. He assured me that all the new laptops should work with Linux. So to the fist machine, change BIOS. Linux Puppy fires up, but no wireless. Try wireless configuration options but still nothing. Check BIOS settings. We tried one after another of various manufacturers and models, with same result, boots but no wireless. Must be Puppy said the assistant. Brings his Ubuntu USB over, same thing, boots but no wireless. He then seemed a bit concerned, and I asked why. He said what if his laptop breaks and he can't get Linux working on a new machine. Asked me to leave the Puppy with him for a few days while he and another assistant, background electronics, try to figure out the issue.

I went home, a little research. Got the usual mountain of hits on workarounds for Linux wireless issues but nothing worked. However, found one article talking about how until recently the aerial circuit card and physical aerial used to be directly connected. A certain company put it to computer manufacturers that the connection between the aerial circuit card and the physical aerial should be program controlled. So before this company's operating system closes down it will shut the connection between aerial circuit card and physical aerial. The company claimed it was a new security feature.

Could not find any other article to corroborate this. Armed with this 'knowledge' I expected to see lots of threads on the issue, but nada. I've had no problem getting wireless connections for Puppy on 3 or 4 older laptops and desktops. Now plug along with old laptop with issues. Bought one of the Windows machines for the wife and have tried later releases of Ubuntu on it but still no go.

Anyone heard of this?

[rcrsn51]

Did you run the standard diagnostic for missing firmware? A new laptop may have a new wifi device that is not yet in the mainstream Linux kernel.

dmesg | grep -i firmware

[workingdog]

Did you run the standard diagnostic for missing firmware? A new laptop may have a new wifi device that is not yet in the mainstream Linux kernel.

dmesg | grep -i firmware

Thanks for the reply.

No. Not aware that there is a diagnostic for missing firmware. I guess you would run some script through the console? If it found the new wifi device not in mainsstream then how do I locate the code and get it into the kernel? Will do some research. Got to say this was about 18 months ago. The issue was across all new laptops, all brands and models in the shop. at the same time. Maybe time to download a new version of Ubuntu and give it another go - can't image a driver across so many manufacturers would go unresolved by Ubuntu for too long.

Don't want to derail this thread on this issue if it's a matter of tracking a missing driver. Again thanks for the heads up.

[rcrsn51]

For Intel wifi, check out the chart here.

[dogcat]

Well said, mate. Yes, Puppy does take a bit more organising for whatever type of install you want......but once you've performed that install, she's capable of pulling amazing stunts and running rings round mainstream Linux distros, in ways some of 'em couldn't begin to imagine. Which all fits in very neatly with her essentially 'hobbyist' nature, even though that 'nature' is in some cases the very thing that drives some potential new users away.

At the end of the day, the old saw remains as true as ever.......use whatever 'works' for YOU. And stuff what anybody else might think.

Mike.

Yes, to each his/her own. The Puppy Linux programming community & support team has designed and continues to design various Puppy Linux systems and programs that will accommodate 99% of what is required or desired by most users right out of the box, presenting it all in a not-controlled-by-a-corporation environment.

Not being a corporate entity automatically puts most Linux distributions out of reach for most users, much politics and other forces involved with that. I consider Puppy Linux a renegade in the renegade community of Linux, which makes Puppy Linux unique.

[Jadm]

So I have officially started working on this, I have made a few builds with woof. I have made progress in some areas of my goals, and hit a few snags as well. Below is a list of progress, snags and options I see moving forward.

The progress:
1) looks -
I have been able to install fluxbox and set it as default, this means the looks of this puppy will almost certainly be "modern" but still maintain the simplicity (still open to suggestions here).

2)modern browser "out of the box"-
I have set the default browser back to the traditional SeaMonkey but after using sea monkey I might switch to something else.

3) I have gotten puppy to work on my gaming computer ( none of the other current releases would ). If any one has a amd GPU I might be able to help you ! I have yet to try gaming but puppy loads, displays both screens in what appears to be the correct resolution (this was my biggest achievement so far).

Snags:
1) the apt bug "problem"-
So for context I have been building these prototypes (not really even alphas yet) with ubuntu. For what ever reason apt is included in the live USB on first boot after a install to hard drive it no longer works, apon attempting to reinstall it crashes puppy, when I'm trying to see what happy in the terminal every thing appears to get deleted (I don't think that's what's happening but it appears to be) so far I have tried:

1) Building the puppy without pkg, still fails.

2) checked the other Ubuntu/ debian pups for the same issues. ( Both current versions have the same issue).

3) checking to see if apt is on the list to be included, it's not.

4) I haven't booted it yet but I have attempted to remove apt before the iso is made, so maybe that will fix this bug.

I have a few possible solutions I'm working on. ( Not sure this will be deb based, but I'm sure others are having the same issues.) Regardless if any one has any ideas ?

2) so fluxbox appears to have been "abandoned" with the last release being several years ago. Blackbox wm appears to still be maintained, so I might switch to that, something else, or alternatively I might make some adjustments to the fluxbox code myself later if needed. Upon research of window managers still being maintained in 2023, I am sad to report there are not many left :'( .

Things I would like feed back on (but welcome all feedback) :

1) Browsers, what would you all like to see?

2) what base distro would you like to see? I am thinking of a few things, but haven't really had my mind set on anything yet. I would like for it to be something easy to use that would also play well with puppy, that used to be Ubuntu just before I left, but that appears to have changed?

3) what kind of "look" would you all like to see, feel free to include screen shots.

I have also started looking into the installer issues, haven't really done much yet but it is (high) on my to do list. One thing I have noticed is when doing a hard drive install I get a pop up saying " this will not support uefi" well I have uefi, and it boots so.. at least that will be an easy fix.

On another note, I would like to say I think the people who have been maintaining puppy since I left have done a very good job. I knew the "low overhead" Linux world had changed since I left, but wow times are tough when it comes to finding software. I also had a quick look at the debian dogs man i missed out on a lot those things appear to be great! If it wasn't for me really wanting to come back to my roots, that would probably be my new distro.

If nothing else comes out of this project I plan to have a really nice stable, long term puppy that I can use as a daily driver myself, but I do hope to share!

I appreciate and welcome any and all feedback / constructive criticism I feel like you all have helped me build a much better puppy already.

[dimkr]

Most things in this proposal already exist. You can find a Puppy with apt, preinstalled and preconfigured Firefox, GTK+ 3 applications (all except ROX-Filer) that support a large variety of themes and bootflash with support for UEFI-bootable flash drives here. The 10.0.x development builds even have extra security features not found in other Puppy releases: internet-facing applications are sandboxed can't write to /root, for example. The jammy64 development builds at https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... ammy64.yml are similar and use Pale Moon instead of Firefox.

[Jadm]

Most things in this proposal already exist. You can find a Puppy with apt, preinstalled and preconfigured Firefox, GTK+ 3 applications (all except ROX-Filer) that support a large variety of themes and bootflash with support for UEFI-bootable flash drives here. The 10.0.x development builds even have extra security features not found in other Puppy releases: internet-facing applications are sandboxed can't write to /root, for example. The jammy64 development builds at https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... ammy64.yml are similar and use Pale Moon instead of Firefox.

I tried that, I couldn't get it to load my graphics drivers on my main PC. I attempted to download and install, it appears to have installed but then I couldn't get it to set. Also the apt fails to work once installed to a hard drive, and attempting a reinstall will cause a crash.I learned that the hard way :'( . Maybe it's just me possibly I'm doing something wrong ? I mean I have been away from puppy Linux for years, but once was a very avid user, maybe some of the changes are confusing me? Other the apt problems dpup worked great on my main work laptop . As stated though I have quite a few goals, and I didn't really find any thing that checks all the boxes. So I guess what I'm wanting is something that still feels like puppy with improved looks, is stable ( the weekly release of Dpup kinda goes against that), ready out of the box, and flexible enough that I can use it on my $200 2 in 1, as well as my upper mid tear gaming PC. I checked all of the main line puppies, none of them fit that bill. Im also thinking about using another distro from the main line pups, not sure yet though . I hope I don't sound too critical I really do like your work! If I only had the one laptop then yea Dpup would have been my "go to" .

[rockedge]

@Jadm Did you try DebianDog or KLU-jam ?

KLU-jam is just starting to get underway in dev but might interest you as a project for further development to check off all those boxes. Or get away from APT altogether and use a system with a superior package manager like VoidPup or KLV

I just found out again what a drag it is setting up APT to work correctly. And Ubuntu's instance on Flatpak is the future is a disappointment.

[Jadm]

@Jadm Did you try DebianDog or KLU-jam ?

KLU-jam is just starting to get underway in dev but might interest you as a project for further development to check off all those boxes. Or get away from APT altogether and use a system with a superior package manager like VoidPup or KLV

I just found out again what a drag it is setting up APT to work correctly. And Ubuntu's instance on Flatpak is the future is a disappointment.

I did give debin dog a very quick look, it looks amazing . It's just that I got my start in the Linux/ computer world with puppy, and now that I'm getting ready to graduate with a degree in computer science ( many years later) I am driven "home" so to speak. I'm very impressed by how far puppy has came, and yet how it's managed to mostly stay the the same. Honestly I had forgotten about how much I liked the simplicity of it all.

[dimkr]

is stable ( the weekly release of Dpup kinda goes against that)

Some people see "stable software" as software that doesn't change. However, every big piece of software has bugs, so an operating system that doesn't change doesn't introduce new bugs, but also, doesn't receive fixes for known bugs. Those weekly releases that you see as sources of instability actually pull bug fixes and security fixes from Debian's stable branch.

[Jadm]

well I have started playing with the setting quite a bit, so far I have managed to add flux box to woof, and modify scripts to build its menu automatically. I am now looking for a theme.please see screen shot bellow. What do you all think is it still "Puppy" or did I go to far? . I am also still working on several bug fixes.. so I would say I am still far, far from done. So the above look is likely to change. any feed back? what would you all like to see ?