VanillaDpup 9.3.x

[dimkr]

Maybe going from 9.3.7 to 9.3.15 is too big a jump?

Which Firefox do you use? Is it the preinstalled one?

Debian sticks with Firefox ESR so updates should be smooth even if you skip some updates like this.

[MochiMoppel]

If some users don't want something to maximize their browser by default, I prefer to let this window behave like any other, a more neutral stance compared to making this the only application that remembers its window size.

Not only would it be the only application that insists on starting "maximized" instead of "normal", it would also have its functionality crippled.

Without the setting in JWM it's almost back to it's default behavior. That's good. However a small problem in VanillaDpup remains. Firefox is supposed to remembers its size and position when setting "Open previous windows and tabs" is checked, but in VanillaDpup it remembers only its position, not its size. I tracked down the reason for this misbehavior to the puppy.cfg file where the line defaultPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting", true); prevents the retention of size. Maybe this setting should be deleted because - if I recall correctly - it may also prevent the upload of image attachments.

[Burunduk]

I tracked down the reason for this misbehavior to the puppy.cfg file where the line defaultPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting", true); prevents the retention of size. Maybe this setting should be deleted because - if I recall correctly - it may also prevent the upload of image attachments.

Yes, the option does break uploaded images. This was discussed in viewtopic.php?t=8350. This is for privacy but the implementation could be better. Is it really that difficult to distinguish automatic uploads from the user initiated ones? And it hides your screen resolution from your foes - it could be a separate option. Exceptions can be added on a per site basis but it's annoying and only fixes uploads.
The option is disabled by default in the original firefox. In Puppy, is there a good reason to keep the change that introduced the problem and vote for workarounds?

[Airdale]

Maybe going from 9.3.7 to 9.3.15 is too big a jump?

Which Firefox do you use? Is it the preinstalled one?

Debian sticks with Firefox ESR so updates should be smooth even if you skip some updates like this.

Yes. I haven't changed it.

[Tahrbaby]

I understand Linux can be very frustrating until you figure it out. However the community it usually very helpful
To get firefox to open maximized this code should work (it does in 9.3.13)

Code: Select all

<!-- Start Firefox maximized, to save vertical space -->
<Group>
    <Name>Navigator</Name>
    <Name>Firefox</Name>
    <Option>maximized</Option>
</Group>

You need to edit your /root/.jwm/.jwmrc-personal
line 38 under other <Group> tag for my setup

When names start with a . as in .jwm it means they are hidden. To see them click on the 'eye' in Rox filer menu bar . It will say All in the title bar
Hope this helps

Thanks but its not quite what I see in my .jwmrc-personal.

But in any case why try and fix something that wasn't broken in the first place just because two people insisted on it ?!!

[d-pupp]

I just upgraded to 9.3.15
No hardware issues to report.
No issues with Firefox
The code I posted above will open Firefox full screen

[Feek]

Today I upgraded to version 9.3.16.
It looks like it contains an older version of Firefox. On startup it says to create a new profile, otherwise bookmarks and stuff might get messed up.
Thanks.

[dimkr]

@Feek This is a bug in woof-CE. Investigating.

EDIT: https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... 4003/files is ready, testing it and building 9.3.17. A certificate change in the Debian updates repo caused woof-CE to ignore the updates repo, so 9.3.16 was built using package from the latest Debian 11 point release, without updates since then.

EDIT: 9.3.17 is uploaded, looks good. firefox-esr is updated to 102.10.0esr-1 and curl to 7.74.0-1.3+deb11u7.

[totiks2023]

Good day to you, and best wishes! I'm on your forum for the first time. I have known the puppy linux distribution for a long time. But recently I got acquainted with the Vanila Dpup distribution and I liked it very much, but the only problem I encountered is that the distribution does not want to pick up the dpi value, and for the reason that I can’t see the fonts on the desktop that come by default, they are very small, because what I did, first, I tried to restart the X-server through logout, but the fonts did not become larger, if I restart the X-server with Ctrl + Alt + bacspace , then I am thrown into the tty session, and typing startx, this gives a successful boot experience large font size I need, but alas, it can not be saved on reboot, and the fonts on the desktop are small again, I tried to fix the issue with the file ~/.xprofile whose content is xrandr --dpi 150, but this also did not help, later I edited xorg .config and in the Monitor section I wrote down the options
Option "DPMS"
Option "DPI" "150 x 150"
but these actions did not lead to the result of increasing the fonts.
Kind people help me solve this problem, I have already become interested in how it works, I am very grateful to you in advance. I beg your pardon, I write through Google translite.

[dimkr]

@totiks2023 Try to add Xft.dpi: 150 to /root/.Xdefaults

[totiks2023]

@totiks2023 Try to add Xft.dpi: 150 to /root/.Xdefaults

I looked in /root/.Xdefaults there are options for terminals, and I need the font to change globally, but in any case, thanks for responding.

[totiks2023]

@totiks2023 Try to add Xft.dpi: 150 to /root/.Xdefaults

I beg your pardon, I did not immediately turn on to understand, now I understand your message, what should have been placed
Xft.dpi: 150
at the end of /root/.Xdefaults and it worked for me, thank you from the bottom of my heart!

[d-pupp]

I am using 9.3.21 and when I printed something my list of printers was cut off very short
This only happens when printing a pdf from pdf viewer
Note it doesn't affect printing at all only seeing my printer in the list.

[bert07]

Latest version:

Broken dependencies.

Could not install anything.

[dimkr]

@bert07 Is it a clean installation or update from 9.3.24 or an older version? The update to 9.3.24 is not automatic, you'll need to start with a fresh save.

Othewise, try apt update && apt --fix-broken install.

[tosim]

Cannot acquire 32b,v10 download from: https://vanilla-dpup.github.io/. I get about 430KBbbbb, and then it "breaks".
Any suggestions, please? Thanks.

[redquine]

Cannot acquire 32b,v10 download from: https://vanilla-dpup.github.io/. I get about 430KBbbbb, and then it "breaks".
Any suggestions, please? Thanks.

I've had the same problem downloading ISOs through the browser.
Try using uGet instead; if you're already using VanillaDpup, it should appear in the Menu under Internet.
I've found it's not only more reliable but also a lot quicker! Hopefully you will too.

[dimkr]

Cannot acquire 32b,v10 download from: https://vanilla-dpup.github.io/. I get about 430KBbbbb, and then it "breaks".
Any suggestions, please? Thanks.

Which browser do you use?

[tosim]

@@dimkr I am using Firefox,114.0,64b.Thank you both for the replies.
Update: Just tried again-SUCCESS.

[williwaw]

I am using 9.3.30 and trying to boot the iso with grub2. I have a stanza that boots other iso's, but the boot fails in the init with puppy-vanilladpup-9.3.30.sfs not found

how can I find out where the iso is mounted this early in a failed boot?
I saved the logs, but nothing apparent was seen.

[dimkr]

@williwaw Without logs or extra details, I can't help much.

[williwaw]

I am using 9.3.30 and trying to boot the iso with grub2. I have a stanza that boots other iso's, but the boot fails in the init with puppy-vanilladpup-9.3.30.sfs not found

how can I find out where the iso is mounted this early in a failed boot?
I saved the logs, but nothing apparent was seen.

If you are willing to take a look, I have zipped some logs and some grub2 stanzas.

Code: Select all

menuentry "V" {
	set iso='/vanilladpup-9.3.30.iso'
	search -f $iso --set=root
     loopback loop $iso
     linux (loop)/vmlinuz file=puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs pdrv=feafecc8-8592-4052-adbb-4264819702e8  pupsfs=feafecc8-8592-4052-adbb-4264819702e8
     initrd (loop)/initrd.gz

file=puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs is not a puppy parameter that I am aware of, but I thought it was possibly a grub2 config as it shortened the time grub ran
either with or without, the error is the same

[dimkr]

@williwaw Can you collect the same logs again, but this time with loglevel=7 after pupsfs=feafecc8-8592-4052-adbb-4264819702e8?

EDIT: and also run blkid on this computer, from any distro

[williwaw]

thanks for looking at this

[dimkr]

@williwaw Does puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs exist on sda2?

[williwaw]

@williwaw Does puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs exist on sda2?

it only exists inside sda2/vanilladpup-9.3.30.iso
I did have a false positive boot when a puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs was found inside a nearby frugal install. I have since relocated my vanilla frugals to a different disk and unplugged it.

whats curious is the the iso seems to be mounted, as the initrd, (or is it the just the vmlinz?) right next to the puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs inside the iso enables the boot to get as far as it does , yet the puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs cannot be discovered

[dimkr]

pupsfs=feafecc8-8592-4052-adbb-4264819702e8 asks the init script to mount the partition with this UUID (sda2) and look for puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs there.

[williwaw]

pupsfs=feafecc8-8592-4052-adbb-4264819702e8 asks the init script to mount the partition with this UUID (sda2) and look for puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs there.

seeing as the iso is mounted to a loopback device, would something like pupsfs=loop0: be recognized by the init script? I tried a few different permutations.........

[rcrsn51]

The Multi Installer in the Daedalus Starter Kit does this correctly.

[williwaw]

The Multi Installer in the Daedalus Starter Kit does this correctly.

Hi rcrsn51,
the multi installer and grub2 linked in the starter kit is what I am using. The stanza generated by the multi installer appeared to be a success, but it was a false positive as mentioned a few posts back The puppy_vanilladpup_9.3.30.sfs was found in a frugal, even one on a different partition
I intend to follow up with a post there once I get sorted. Do you remember which most recent puppy you have had success with?