Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

hi dimkr

my motives are positive

i am not trying to spread fud

i am only trying to encourage others
( since i am not a developer and cannot do it myself )

to adopt a system that i feel will help the entire puppy community

the people that can use woof-ce will continue to use it
and they are doing a great job making fantastic puppies
but that leaves a lot of people out

i think if there was an easier way to make our distro
it would bring in more developers
which i agree is the primary problem

this is also why i am so adamant about a small base iso
a small iso gets peoples attention
and attracts them to our distro
it makes us stand out from the pack

try a web search
what are some small linux distros

it has other advantages as well
but that is really secondary

its just a simple fact that the more things you put in a distro the bigger it will get
but you dont have to put everything in the iso to begin your journey
you can add what you want as you need it

and that also is a selling point
you can customize your distro without rebuilding it

if i wasnt interested in helping our distro
i would not be here
why waste my time

edit
on further thought
i should not criticize woof-ce
that is negative and counterproductive
( i wont do that anymore )
i should only suggest our distro have an additional build system

wanderer

here is my vision

if someone really wants to help our distro

help me develop
the 1 script 1 template build system
for a small base iso - that can be added to with sfs files
for debian 12
for our distro

and i will donate an agreed on sum in us dollars to rockedge to support the cost of the forum
which by the way is the actual heart of our distro
because no forum no distro

pm me and we will work out the details

wanderer

wanderer wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 4:29 pm

help me develop
the 1 script 1 template build system

Actually tbere is no such build system used on this forum. Debiandog, for example relies on debootstrap which is a relatively large, complicated multi-script build system maintained and provided by official Debian.

A frontend script that calls up debootstrap can be a single script, but a single script could run whole woof-CE script chain, but the weakness is the imperfect design of the woof-CE part. Debian debootstrap is extremely complicated internally but can be reliably used as a black box, albeit the result is not particularl unique or independent.

Also, there is really no such thing as a tiny base system anymore. Well not once you include expected libs, core utils, and certainly not if X, Wayland, with gtk or qt is included.

Core plus modules always sounds utopian, but not realistic beyond probably near end of life razor slashed tinycore linux approach. Tinycore is not Puppy.

hi wiak and everyone

i am not talking about woof-ce
and i am not talking about puppy

i am not tied to any particular piece of code

i understand the issues

and i understand both tinycore and puppy

and i know it can be done
because i have seen it done

the only thing i lack is the technical skills

so my financial offer still stands

if anyone wants to help our distro
they can help me
and i will donate money to our forum

wanderer

If this forum wants to keep some variation of Puppy Linux alive it should work on changing woof-CE design and reject integration of the likes of apt or Void Linux xbps for that matter. These package managers should only, at most, be available as optional sfs addon system components.

There is a reason not to integrate them. For apt, debiandog will always do it better, for xbps, KLV is logically always better. Puppy result is a poor relation, which is not something to aim for. We already have debiandog and klv; Puppy should not try to copy them as best it can. Puppy should not be developed into a poor imperfect clone.

Let me make this quite clear. FirstRib-based KL distro was never designed with the idea of being a new Puppy or a replacement for it. Nor, I believe, was Debiandog; they are alternative distro designs altogether, which deserve full forum support too, but not twisted into some new Puppy use. Both DD and KL purposively align their root filesystems to be fully upstream repo compatible. Puppy strives to be more system level simple but unique; that is Puppy! With debootstrap build approach, you simply end with an inferior kind of Debiandog!

wiak wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 5:23 pm

If this forum wants to keep some variation of Puppy Linux alive it should work on changing woof-CE design and reject integration of the likes of apt or Void Linux xbps for that matter. These package managers should only, at most, be available as optional sfs addon system components.

There is a reason not to integrate them. For apt, debiandog will always do it better, for xbps, KLV is logically always better. Puppy result is a poor relation, which is not something to aim for. We already have debiandog and klv; Puppy should not try to copy them as best it can. Puppy should not be developed into a poor imperfect clone.

Let me make this quite clear. FirstRib-based KL distro was never designed with the idea of being a new Puppy or a replacement for it. Nor, I believe, was Debiandog; they are alternative distro designs altogether, which deserve full forum support too, but not twisted into some new Puppy use. Both DD and KL purposively align their root filesystems to be fully upstream repo compatible. Puppy strives to be more system level simple but unique; that is Puppy! With debootstrap build approach, you simply end with an inferior kind of Debiandog!

@wanderer Quoting wiak as I couldn't possibly say it any better for the most (except that IMO making *some* use of debootstrap could be perhaps good for Puppy)
You can't compare apples with oranges, and not change apples to oranges (or mix, that would be weird) Please be more realistic, you will feel better then, I promise .

hi guys

i have the greatest respect and admiration for all of you

and this distro has been both useful and entertaining for me over many years

i am not trying to steal your puppy from you

i am actually trying to help

if someone helps me
maybe something useful and interesting can be created
and some money will be given to help the forum

you guys just continue doing what you want to do

why dont you work on woof-ce and puppy

i can only give you my suggestions

and actually i feel very good about all of this
this has been a fun hobby

wanderer

There is nothing stopping Puppy from using upstream package managers, be it apt, xbps, or anything like it. If you like it so much, then by all means build a Puppy with it. It's not like there is a rule saying that Puppy can only use PPM, or Puppy cannot use upstream tools etc. Whether or not it will be better, worse, or equal to KL, or to DD, or any other distros in existence, does not matter. This is not a competition. In fact, there are already Puppies like that, vanilladpup and quickpup comes to mind.

Same with build methods. There is no rule saying that Puppy cannot be built with debootstrap or something equivalent in other distros. In fact, there is nothing stopping woof-CE from being retrofitted to use debootstrap or dpkg behind the scenes - and the user will be none the wiser. For example, 10 years ago, I did exactly that - forking woof-CE to build Puppy using dpkg and using apt as its package manager.

In the past we always insisted that Puppy is what comes out of woof-CE. But nowadays we all seem to agree that Puppy can be anything we want it to be, so this requirement is all gone, innit? Hence, going forward, there is nothing stopping Puppy from being built with FR or DD build scripts, or any other build scripts for that matter, innit?

wiak created FR build system, and created weedog. Fred created DD build system, and created DD. But it doesn't mean that neither FR or DD-build can be adapted, or modified, to build Puppy, with any features that you like, because, well, as you all say, Puppy is a Puppy, right? No definition fits all, but we all know what a Puppy is when we see one, don't we?

Hence,

There is nothing wrong with Puppy built with deboostrap and uses apt, if somebody chooses to build it that way.

There is nothing wrong with Puppy built with FR and uses xbps. But you should not expect wiak to do this for you, or claim that wiak is a Puppy dev, or that FR or KL or weedog == Puppy, because it is not.

There is nothing wrong with Puppy built with DD-built scripts and uses apt. But you should not expect fred to do this for you, or claim that fred is a Puppy dev, or that DD == Puppy, because it is not.

So go ahead, do what you want - but please don't bug wiak or fred. They have enough already on their plates.

My two cents, anyway

The only thing that matters is to find someone who wants to build Puppy your way

thank you jamesbond

i do not intend to ask anyone to help me
they will have to contact me by pm
and any money will go to support the forum

i am already working on it
and i may be able to get further than one would expect
i have a good book to read on the subject

i will however continue to give my opinions on this thread
and i hope everyone else will too

so best wishes and good luck to everyone in puppy world

wanderer

jamesbond wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 7:11 pm

There is nothing stopping Puppy from using upstream package managers, be it apt, xbps, or anything like it. If you like it so much, then by all means build a Puppy with it. It's not like there is a rule saying that Puppy can only use PPM, or Puppy cannot use upstream tools etc. Whether or not it will be better, worse, or equal to KL, or to DD, or any other distros in existence, does not matter. This is not a competition. In fact, there are already Puppies like that, vanilladpup and quickpup comes to mind.

The above seems to me to be a summary of what is actually the state of play in "What's up in Puppy World".

Puppy has been forked by dimkr, or more accurately woof-CE has been forked.

If there is a problem with that for Puppy it is that Vanilla Dpup is NOT being branded as Puppy Linux. It is not being touted as the development of Puppy, but as a fork, being dimkr own distro.

What I don't see is how in that light Vanilla Dpup is not in 'competition' to what was Puppy (I say 'what was Puppy' because with dimkr and 01micko going, Puppy itself is left with effectively no system level developers and any git style pushes to Puppy by dimkr from what is effectively his personal distro replacement do not get merged into poor-relation actual branded Puppy because that required a Puppy leader who, disingeniously enough, was in fact dimkr!!!).

If the plan of dimkr is to have his fork eventually be accepted as the new Puppy Linux, well fair enough, surely Puppy enthusiasts/supporters could vote on that. But if dimkr truly has no intention of every releasing Vanilla Dpup to the Puppy community as the new Puppy then it is actually in competition with Puppy, and Puppy itself becomes at best secondary to dimkr's new distro Vanilla Dpup.

The odd thing to me is that dimkr himself stated very clearly, many times, that he did not want PPM at all, yet he has put it as an optional package manager into his Vanilla Dpup, making it thus a Puppy competitor, which is an effective Puppy destroyer - for those who feel Puppy, like DebianDog, should be based to a large extent on official Debian debootstrap, which Vanilla Dpup is according to: https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... woof-CE.md

It is fine to me if the Puppy Community majority feel that a debootstrap-based Puppy is the future way to go and thus put their weight around that style of Puppy. In many ways it still looks and feels like the more traditional PPM-based Puppy Linux. The forked woof-CE is simplified to a great extent since debootstrap does a lot of work (as in DebianDog). What would be gone in that model is, for example, Slackware support (unless some Slackware builder code gets incorporated in worthwhile fashion.

But the 'What's up' problem in that brave new kennel-related world is that Puppy itself is effectively killed off and replaced by a distro called Vanilla Dpup whose sole developer is dimkr.

If that becomes the case, this forum should definitely be rebranded and Vanilla Dpup only receive a small section of exposure - just like KL, DD and others.

In that 'What's Up' scenario, I really do feel what we should actually here on the forum be considering is to re-brand the forum itself to match that new distro situation reality since domain puppylinux.com, despite being a longtime well-known brand, becomes nevertheless historic (Puppy development effectively killed off compared to the new Vanilla Dpup distro emergence). Time in that case for new brand. I'd suggest "The Kennels", but in that case the distro Kennel Linux should also be rebranded to be fair to all other distros featured in the Kennels. In that proposal, Puppy Linux forum would absorb the old Puppy, but move forward with an identity that actually reflects its true distro-supporting content. Rockedge will probably object, but why? Reality is reality and no harm in developing the forum and the domain puppylinux.com can still be used for Puppy matters since the Kennels 'leadership' controls that domain anyway. Kennel Linux domain?

jamesbond wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 7:11 pm

There is nothing stopping Puppy from using upstream package managers, be it apt, xbps, or anything like it. If you like it so much, then by all means build a Puppy with it. It's not like there is a rule saying that Puppy can only use PPM, or Puppy cannot use upstream tools etc. Whether or not it will be better, worse, or equal to KL, or to DD, or any other distros in existence, does not matter. This is not a competition. In fact, there are already Puppies like that, vanilladpup and quickpup comes to mind.

The above seems to me to be a summary of what is actually the state of play in "What's up in Puppy World".

Puppy has been forked by dimkr, or more accurately woof-CE has been forked.

If there is a problem with that for Puppy it is that Vanilla Dpup is NOT being branded as Puppy Linux. It is not being touted as the development of Puppy, but as a fork, being dimkr own distro.

What I don't see is how in that light Vanilla Dpup is not in 'competition' to what was Puppy (I say 'what was Puppy' because with dimkr and 01micko going, Puppy itself is left with effectively no system level developers and any git style pushes to Puppy by dimkr from what is effectively his personal distro replacement do not get merged into poor-relation actual branded Puppy because that required a Puppy leader who, disingeniously enough, was in fact dimkr!!!).

If the plan of dimkr is to have his fork eventually be accepted as the new Puppy Linux, well fair enough, surely Puppy enthusiasts/supporters could vote on that. But if dimkr truly has no intention of every releasing Vanilla Dpup to the Puppy community as the new Puppy then it is actually in competition with Puppy, and Puppy itself becomes at best secondary to dimkr's new distro Vanilla Dpup.

The odd thing to me is that dimkr himself stated very clearly, many times, that he did not want PPM at all, yet he has put it as an optional package manager into his Vanilla Dpup, making it thus a Puppy competitor, which is an effective Puppy destroyer - for those who feel Puppy, like DebianDog, should be based to a large extent on official Debian debootstrap, which Vanilla Dpup is according to: https://github.com/vanilla-dpup/woof-CE ... woof-CE.md

It is fine to me if the Puppy Community majority feel that a debootstrap-based Puppy is the future way to go and thus put their weight around that style of Puppy. In many ways it still looks and feels like the more traditional PPM-based Puppy Linux. The forked woof-CE is simplified to a great extent since debootstrap does a lot of work (as in DebianDog). What would be gone in that model is, for example, Slackware support (unless some Slackware builder code gets incorporated in worthwhile fashion.

But the 'What's up' problem in that brave new kennel-related world is that Puppy itself is effectively killed off and replaced by a distro called Vanilla Dpup whose sole developer is dimkr.

If that becomes the case, this forum should definitely be rebranded and Vanilla Dpup only receive a small section of exposure - just like KL, DD and others.

In that 'What's Up' scenario, I really do feel what we should actually here on the forum be considering is to re-brand the forum itself to match that new distro situation reality since domain puppylinux.com, despite being a longtime well-known brand, becomes nevertheless historic (Puppy development effectively killed off compared to the new Vanilla Dpup distro emergence). Time in that case for new brand. I'd suggest "The Kennels", but in that case the distro Kennel Linux should also be rebranded to be fair to all other distros featured in the Kennels. In that proposal, Puppy Linux forum would absorb the old Puppy, but move forward with an identity that actually reflects its true distro-supporting content. Rockedge will probably object, but why? Reality is reality and no harm in developing the forum and the domain puppylinux.com can still be used for Puppy matters since the Kennels 'leadership' controls that domain anyway. Kennel Linux domain?

I had used puppy since 4.3.2 when it soon was replaced with Lucid, great improvement. I adopted the early puppy-studio by lowt3ch, and enjoyed all of these distros. However, I never found them to be an all out replacement for Windows, as the linux world used to be, until recently, somewhat difficult for a "typical user", it was just difficult to get specialized hardware working, among other hurdles that mainstream ms/apple software did not present.

That was until fosspup64_9.5.

After a couple of months of using it, I felt puppy had arrived, and I promptly erased windows from every machine I owned and haven't looked back.

It became clear though, after a couple years, where the achilles heel in the "puppy-concept" was for me, and that simply had to do with a puppy being fixed to a specific set of packages of a certain upstream release, and that the OS and it's software simply had too short a shelf life in this fast moving enviornment.

So when the First-rib distro KLV-airedale came out, I tried it, and it was an "aha" moment for me. It was completely different, maybe not a puppy as I had come to understand, but certainly a forward looking approach. So I jumped on early while still in the beta phase with the thought that as it progressed I would fully understand how it operates. And that has been the case. I now use F96 and KLV variants exclusively, though have booted many other forum distros, these are my daily drivers.

The KLV model has a few key ingredients going for it which I will attempt to clarify.

1) Conservative, dependable, and reasonably current rolling release model upstream. The Void ethos to me is very compatible with the puppy sensibility. Not bleeding edge, but offering flexibility as well as choices in things like systemd, xorg, wayland, pipewire, alsa/jack etc. The fact that Void is not cranking out a completely new base system every couple years is particularly compatible with puppy sensibilities. In other words the one Void rolling release has a longer shelf life with great customization potential and adequate backward compatibility.

2) The first rib install tools are seemless. wd_config provides dependable boot stanzs. The layered filesystem involving only two digit number prefixes makes custom additions of layers, either compressed or uncompressed, totally configurable by a power user. Multi-instance install script makes experimentation an easy reality using minimal disk space. The Psuedo-Full Install technique allows an average guy like me the ability to build a system without relying on mastering scripts and configurations, and it also allows one to run a system as if it were a full install while still having no need to partition a separate area of the drive where it resides. The two techniques combined create a layman's development architecture that has no equal so far, to the best of my knowledge.

3) @fredx181's backup/restoresys scripts included in the KLs allow one to take a Psuedo-Full-Install, customize it, build it with desired applications, then back up the "upper_changes" which are in reality the entire rootfs excluding the kernel and modules, and then squash that backup into a read-only compressed filesystem (a new build) all while still running in the system. Then using @wiak's multi-instance-install technique one just needs to link to that filesytem in the other instances and reboot, at that point running in a newly created system, read-only and compressed. In fact I do this about every 2-3 months. I run the compressed read-only multi-instances and leave the instance0 as a Psuedo-Full install and untouched. After experimenting in the other instances, I simply boot up the Psuedo-Full Install and make the tested changes there, back it up and resquash the back up. New daily driver created and ready to symlink to the other multi-instances.

These key ingredients make the KLs very powerful and compelling distros.

I feel they should be in the "ready-for-prime-time" space, where ever that is these days.

wiak wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:34 am

But the 'What's up' problem in that brave new kennel-related world is that Puppy itself is effectively killed off and replaced by a distro called Vanilla Dpup whose sole developer is dimkr.

If that becomes the case, this forum should definitely be rebranded and Vanilla Dpup only receive a small section of exposure - just like KL, DD and others.

Has Dima refused your contributions to Vanilla?

@wiak Nothing is 'replaced' and nothing is 'destroyed', your wording is way too dramatic.

I'm doing the development work for Vanilla Dpup 11.0.x in a fork so I have complete freedom to make changes and don't break the upstream woof-CE that's still in use by others.

Forking a project to make changes is normal development practice, not a declaration of war or a hostile takeover of a project. I want nothing to do with puppylinux.com and other Puppy infra, my hands are full with actual development work.

If the woof-CE project halts or slows down while I'm doing my work - that's beyond my control, and I have no intention to 'compete' with it. I believe most members of the woof-CE organization won't accept my changes, for various reasons (inactivity being the primary one), or at best accept them but let them rot in a side branch like @jamesbond's simplified woof-CE branch. This is why I believe my work should stay in this fork and coexist peacefully with Puppy.

It's true that my fork drops many things including PPM, but it also includes various Puppy backward compatibility shims. It should 'feel' like Puppy (can install .pet, load .sfs, ...) and provide some migration path. But don't confuse this with 'replacing' or 'destroying' Puppy because many projects (including GCC, glibc and ffmpeg) had forks, survived and even became stronger thanks to these forks.

I want the Vanilla Dpup project to grow only if it grows organically, through contributions (especially code) and a larger user base, definitely not by killing other projects or competing with them using dirty tricks. It's OK with me if it doesn't grow, as long as it's a healthy, maintainable project, and that is the primary reason for the narrow scope of my fork (which is based on a relatively small slice of woof-CE - without PPM for example).

williwaw wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 3:28 am

wiak wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:34 am

But the 'What's up' problem in that brave new kennel-related world is that Puppy itself is effectively killed off and replaced by a distro called Vanilla Dpup whose sole developer is dimkr.

If that becomes the case, this forum should definitely be rebranded and Vanilla Dpup only receive a small section of exposure - just like KL, DD and others.

Has Dima refused your contributions to Vanilla?

Sorry, but I find that an odd thing to ask me. Why would I need to be making contributions to Vanilla, and if I did and these were accepted, in what way is that going to help Puppy? Dimkr (perfectly reasonably by the way) makes it clear that Vanilla is not Puppy.

I want nothing to do with puppylinux.com and other Puppy infra, my hands are full with actual development work.

Now that's kind of hurtful. Sure one can take this comment a few ways.... but I understand this to be a derogatory statement directed towards me and the few that put in the work keeping operations running smoothly.

@dimkr you seem to indicated I am simply toying around killing time while you are doing "actual development work". Does this summarize your stance?

@rockedge I don't think he means anything other than that he's busy and doesn't have enough time to deal with anything else other than his own project.

hi rockedge and everyone

im sure dimkr meant no ill

but i think everyone needs to be continually reminded
how important the forum is

it is the heart of our distro
no forum no distro

writing code is part of our distro
but where are you going to post it

so along side of making a usr friendly distro build system
we need to make a usr friendly forum support system

and that means donating money if you can
and showing appreciation for all the work rockedge does

thank you rockedge

wanderer

Why Apt Package Manager needs to be in Puppy Linux.

Not a total replacement, but an optional package manager to use.

If a Puppy version does not have it's own repository of pet packages, that PPM could access, for program packages.
All it can use, is repositories of packages that are for the Linux OS, it is using for it's core Linux files and programs.
It is about a 50% to 75% chance those packages will work in the Puppy version.

The same applies to using APT, to get software packages from specific repositories, that are for the base Linux OS, it is getting core Linux files and programs from.

But one thing APT can do, is download and install software from a web site, that is only giving an apt command to do it with.
I seem to be seeing this as download method, more and more, for program download instructions.
Adding the programs repository to apt and downloading from it.
Apt commands (provided by the programs download instructions) to do that, are very easy to use.

About APT only providing deb packages.
So what?
Puppy versions, for many years, have been able to use deb packages, to try and install software programs.
Some just work.
It really comes down to what other dependency software is needed.
Others may still need some dependency software, also installed.

Isn't it really all about, the program package having all the needed files, for the program to run.
Installing process, placing these files in the correct locations, in the operating file system?

The newest versions of Puppy, seem to be following a normal Linux file system layout.
These different ways to package software for installing, seem to want that type layout, as locations to put the files they install.

The only holdout in Puppy, is /mnt/home, which is not the same as home, in a normal Linux file system layout.
But the normal Linux file system home directory is also there.
Really /mnt/home is a specific Puppy location for the save file or folder.
It is not even in the file system, until a save is made and used.

rockedge wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 12:48 pm

@dimkr you seem to indicated I am simply toying around killing time while you are doing "actual development work". Does this summarize your stance?

Not at all! What I mean is, I have no intention to somehow take control of the Puppy 'brand', puppylinux.com or the forum, both because I don't want to (the thing I'm building is not 100% Puppy as we know it and I want to spend my time on development) and because I'm too busy for other things (that's why the Vanilla Dpup website is a short, static, single page).

Maybe I misunderstood this reply, feel free to correct me.

I'm really grateful for what you're doing @rockedge, don't get me wrong. Puppy can't exist without the forum: this is the only place where the (few) users can ask for help to talk to the (fewer) developers. The work you're doing is super important for Puppy's survival, and it's way more important than development itself, because developers can find their own ways to work with each other and we need users to have more contributors.

hi everyone

and speaking of supporting the forum and our distro

a developer could always help me make my distro

and i will give a few bucks to rockedge for the forum

i am moving along fine without help

but the more the merrier

wanderer

dimkr wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 3:21 pm

Maybe I misunderstood this reply, feel free to correct me.

Whether intended or not, it is impossible for me to say that Vanilla Dpup is not being considered a replacement of traditional Puppy Linux. Vanilla Dpup has a developer, who was Puppy Linux last real developer so of course people who use Puppy look at Vanilla Dpup like it might be the new Puppy, and so it might be. Just read mikewalsh's favourable comments about Vanilla Dpup for example to see how a longtime Puppy user can decide Vanilla Dpup may be the best thing since sliced bread in the Puppy World; farewell to Puppy then, though why not?

mikewalsh wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 6:14 pm

.....and AppImages work, too.....AND every 'portable' I've tried so far. Even the AppImage-based WINE-portables work, flawlessly. I'm trying out VanillaDPup 10.0.53 ATM. Posting right now from Opera-portable.

Everything just "works". I'm impressed.

(I'll have a go at pairing my VicTsing "MX Master 'clone'" mouse later this evening. I'm curious to see if it's as easy as pairing BlueTooth is under ChromeOS-Flex. That one is SO simple it's ridiculous.)

Mike.

If Vanilla Dpup is not viewed on this forum as being a Puppy Linux distro, then what is it viewed as being then?

Were it developed secretly and as such for private use, then the for own needs sort of argument would make sense, but actually it has been marketed strongly in forum threads. I don't object at all to that; better there is a Vanilla Dpup then no Puppy distro at all, but not to talk about Vanilla Dpup place in this "What's up in Puppy World" would seem to miss a big change that is relevant to that.

wiak wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 5:39 pm

Whether intended or not, it is impossible for me to say that Vanilla Dpup is not being considered a replacement of traditional Puppy Linux.

BookwormPup64 is very close Vanilla Dpup 10.0.x because it's originally based on it. If you consider BookwormPup64 to be a 'official' and 'traditional' Puppy, then I don't understand why we need another one that's super similar anyway.

If anyone wants to fork Vanilla Dpup to build something and call it 'official Puppy', and it doesn't matter if it's a soft fork or a hard fork - go ahead and do that. The build system is publicly available (with a copyleft license), releases are fully reproducible (with release automation). Everything is in https://github.com/vanilla-dpup.

For 11.0.x I'm going in a different direction, a tough sell (even compared to current releases) for users that want a 'traditional' Puppy. To sum it up, there are good reasons why I don't present Vanilla Dpup, neither current releases nor future ones, as a 'replacement' for anything. If anyone else disagrees and wants to pursue this path - take my work, rebrand it and do your thing.

wiak wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 5:39 pm

farewell to Puppy then, though why not?

There are many variants of Puppy: @radky's, @peebee's, @ozsouth's, @mistfire's ... so the Puppy family tree still has green leaves.

Puppy doesn't need a 'successor' because it's still alive in one way or another. It's surprising to hear you proposing to replace 'official Puppy' with one of its variants (one built with woof-CE), especially as a longtime critic of Puppy who repeatedly portrays its official build system as inferior.

mikewalsh wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 6:14 pm

If Vanilla Dpup is not viewed on this forum as being a Puppy Linux distro, then what is it viewed as being then?

While I do think that most current Puppy releases don't bring anything useful or interesting to the table (they're rebuilds of the same thing), I don't understand what's special about Vanilla Dpup. It is one variant among many variants of Puppy, a relatively unpopular one that goes against Puppy tradition, so it doesn't deserve any special recognition when you're talking about candidates for the 'official' Puppy spot.

hi all

dimkr has stated it succinctly

lets review everything in puppy world
which is the purpose of this thread

bookworm is our distrowatch candidate ( thank you radky and peebee )
and will be for at least a year

we have tons of classic puppies being developed
i use upup32 ( thank you peebee )
updated bookworm or any of these classic puppies are in line to be the next distrowatch candidate

we have debiandog and its variants ( thank you fredx181 and friends )
i also use debiandog

we have firstrib and its variants ( thank you wiak and friends )

we have Vanilla Dpup ( thank you dimkr )

then there is fatdog

and easyos

they are on the forum so effectively they are part of puppy world

other things may be developed

anything else
did i leave anything out

wanderer

@dimkr - I ran vanilladpup-9.3.40 (my very compressed version) & it looks like a puppy to me, except you've eliminated some long-term deficiencies & opened new possibilities. If that was the only thing we had to call puppy, it really would suffice. And we currently have many other choices too.

hi all

this is a question i would really like to hear the answer to

if you are new to the puppy forum ?

what brought you to it ?

and what are you interested in ?

and come to think of it

even if you are not new to the forum

what brought you here ?

and what are you interested in ?

wanderer

wanderer wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:49 am

.....and come to think of it

even if you are not new to the forum

what brought you here ?

and what are you interested in ?

wanderer

Heh. If I'm perfectly honest, I came to Puppy primarily because the elderly hardware I was using at the time, 10 yrs ago, was struggling with the then-current 'mainstream' distros. Canonical, who customize their kernels to quite a degree, had just dropped support for the graphics adapter in that machine. Regular, multiple crashes/freeze-ups had become a fact of life for me under Ubuntu.......and the change had, apparently, propogated throughout many of the 'flavours'/derivatives I was running at the time.

An acquaintance on the Ubuntu Forums suggested I take a look at Puppy; Tahrpup 6.0 CE had not long since been released. Accordingly, I tried it out; it was a revelation! Using pretty much 'bog-standard' kernels as it did then - and to a large extent, still does - along with substantial hardware/firmware support for older hardware, graphics were all of a sudden behaving themselves.....and it also rejuvenated the even older Dell Inspiron laptop, too. Within a matter of weeks, I'd switched to being "all-Puppy".

I've not looked back since.

I also had a pet 'beef' with the Synaptic package manager, which was prevalent in most distros at the time; I found it awkward & cumbersome to use. To a large extent, I still do, though I'm wise enough now to realise that the more ways we have of obtaining software for 'our Pup', the better. I liked Puppy's PPM - I couldn't believe how fast Puppy packages installed! - though since developing the portables, together with much-appreciated assistance from Fred (and many others), it's rare that I fully install much software at all.......and what I do install this way is more often than not .pet packages or .deb packages. The PPM gets little use, except for package removal.....and occasionally-needed dependencies from the 'parent' distro. (For a time, I obtained dependencies & some other stuff from pkgs.org, though I've come to realise this is mostly a useful route for newer Puppies since they concentrate on newer releases, like everyone else does. I doubt many Puppians run older Pups to quite the same extent that I do.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I accept that Puppy needs "fresh blood" for its development processes.....though I still maintain - as I have for long enough, and I know others here agree with me - that any OS is but a platform for running software of the user's choice. Without a broad choice of compatible & useful/usable software, an OS is about as much use as a chocolate teapot; interesting enough in itself, but NOT the be-all and the end-all of computer use. Really, the two are inextricably intertwined; software by itself won't run without a platform to run it on, and without software packages, an OS by itself is not much more than a interesting technical curiosity.

Everything that gets aired on the Forum is of interest and/or use - with rare exceptions - so, yes; I too agree that the Forum is central to Puppy 'life'. And everything is worthy of at least consideration, if nothing else.....because we ALL have different ways in which we use our machines, and different 'agendas' for their deployment.

And nobody here has any right to 'take a swing' at any other member.......for ANY reason. We're all of us here either to obtain assistance, discuss our favourite wee OS or to render assistance & dispense advice. Never forget that.

Keep it friendly, everyone.

Mike.

hi mikesir and everyone

here is a possible description for distrowatch
just general so that it includes everything on the forum

puppy is a family of varied distros
that all share the same basic goal of being
a relatively small relatively full featured flexibly deployed and easily modified distro
that is geared to being very useful and interesting for both new and experienced users
and that can run on old and new computers alike
we invite you to come to the puppy forum
and see the incredible variety of projects that are working toward this goal

mikesir could you help make this more technically descriptive
i really liked the last description you wrote

wanderer