nominations for puppy on distrowatch

[peebee]

If we think that a featured Puppy should be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions then Slackware, Debian or Void or maybe Arch are the possibilities..... going Ubuntu implies 64-bit only unless hybrid Ubuntu/Debian 32-bit is acceptable....

[wanderer]

hi peebee

your S15 has both 32 and 64 bit

and clearly has been chosen as the next official puppy

so thats solved

.
but for the future
.

if rockedge is working on his F96

can a 32 bit be made for that

as you say a debian/ubuntu hybrid

.
wanderer

[ozsouth]

I note that the 'face of Puppy' for the last 10+ months is Slacko 7.0 (as per our official distrowatch entries). I don't believe many use that. ScPups are certainly more popular & are the basis of S15. Hence S15 would be a step forward on our current offering, without necessarily locking us in perpetually.

[wanderer]

here is a point i wish to belabor
because i feel its very important

when barry k retired from puppy
he turned it over to the community

that is to say
as i understand it
the community gets to decide what to do

woof-ce is now the official puppy build system

but the puppy community should be able to decide what to do next

there are other build systems
that actually may be better
at least more user friendly

they at least should be considered

woof-ce is very complex and difficult to use and maintain
it is also very labor intensive and prone to error

essentially you must be a guru to use it
and then after you build the distro
you have to be a guru to fix everything
it takes longer to fix things than to build the distro

this has been a recurring issue
and is not going to go away

lets face it woof-ce is not going to be maintained satisfactorily
its too much work

other build systems do not have these problems

look at tinycore
its a very easy system to maintain and use
even i a virtual idiot can easily build a distro with it

i dont know about wiaks build system but rockedge likes it so it must be good

as wizard so elegantly put it
we must not get trapped in our own underwear

so puppy community and gurus
i beseech you
please consider allowing other build systems to also make official puppies

wanderer

[dimkr]

If we think that a featured Puppy should be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions

Why can't the "official" Puppy be 64-bit only while some "unofficial" Puppy takes care of 32-bit? Why punish the vast majority among those looking for a lightweight distro?

[amethyst]

Personally I don't really care what is seen as "official" or "unofficial". I just use what works best for me with my setup (I have old machines) and that happens to be 32-bit Puppys. I do think the main showcase Puppy on Distrowatch should be 64-bit though but mention of/link to the 32-bit flavour can do no harm and may even be an attraction for those still interested in using a 32-bit system.

[fredx181]

If we think that a featured Puppy should be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions

I think one of the Puppy goals is that it should work on older computers, so yes, 32-bit should be supported IMO.

[mikewalsh]

@dimkr :-

If we think that a featured Puppy should be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions

Why can't the "official" Puppy be 64-bit only while some "unofficial" Puppy takes care of 32-bit? Why punish the vast majority among those looking for a lightweight distro?

Erm.....you've lost me. Why shouldn't an "official" Puppy be available in both arches? How is providing a link to a 32-bit version "punishing" those who have 64-bit machines?

I know 64-bit hardware has been around for more than 20 years, and my own hardware is all 64-bit (my one remaining 32-bit machine died a few months back). Doesn't stop me from playing around with 32-bit Puppies, even so..... I also know - and appreciate - that 64-bit development is where it's at these days, that 64-bit is supposed to be far more secure, etc, etc. If you have links to both arches, surely.......everybody's happy, yes?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that YOU have to create a 32-bit version yourself; after all, you have enough on your plate with being the primary Woof-CE contributor/maintainer. I would have thought that it's perfectly possible to have the two different arches of any given release developed by different individuals. No?

Mike.

[wizard]

Don't know if this is pertinent or not. In June of 2022 I posted Frienedly-fossa64 and Friendly-Bionic32 remasters and to date downloads have been:

Fossa64=102, 51% downloaded by MS Windows computers
Bionic32=58, 59% downloaded by Linux computers

Only conclusion I draw is there is still considerable interest in 32 bit Pups.

wizard

[wanderer]

hi all

i also would like to see a 32 bit version
since 32 bit seems to work better for me even on 64 bit machines
however if there is no one who has the time to do the work
the 64 bit version would be the primary one

wanderer

[dimkr]

How is providing a link to a 32-bit version "punishing" those who have 64-bit machines?

If the 64-bit variant of the new "official" Puppy is delayed because the developer is working on the 32-bit one, the vast majority of potential users won't get what they want.

[mikewalsh]

@dimkr :-

How is providing a link to a 32-bit version "punishing" those who have 64-bit machines?

If the 64-bit variant of the new "official" Puppy is delayed because the developer is working on the 32-bit one, the vast majority of potential users won't get what they want.

Heh. Ooh, that's a bit of a "thin" argument.....and makes various assumptions.

• 1) That the same person would be developing both versions?

• 2) That this dev would attempt to have both ready at the same time?

Which is why I suggested having a different dev, or 'team' working on each arch. There's precedent; Phil B developing the 64-bit versions of Bionic and Fossa, and Peter developing the 32-bit variants. You can't take peebee's developing both ScPup variants as any indication of the expected trend; frankly, I'm at a loss as to where the guy finds the time to do everything he does!

(I know Peter's output is appreciated by many, though its sheer volume doesn't necessarily "prove" anything.....aside from the obvious fact that the guy loves doing what he does, AND that he's a very "busy bee". Mind you, I know many people like it; not happy unless they're constantly "on the go", with the need to keep busy doing something.)

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

I think anybody with an ounce of sense would realise that any 64-bit release would of course take precedence. And I don't think you're giving users of older hardware enough credit here; I believe most of them know perfectly well that the days of their elderly hardware are definitely numbered, and I don't think they expect to take any kind of priority any more. Most of 'em are just glad to find someone - anyone! - who still builds something that their hardware can use......they don't really expect to get regular updates/upgrades, too.

That's why many of these users of older hardware tend to find something that works for them, and then stick with it. You cannot take it for granted that every computer user gets their knickers in a twist, worrying themselves silly about keeping up to date with security upgrades. We should never, EVER 'project' the behaviour/attitude/expectations of others, based solely on our own viewpoint. We have to try and put ourselves in that other person's shoes....

That's MY 'take' on the matter. You may see things differently.

Mike.

[peebee]

I was only reminding that a pure 32-bit Ubuntu build has not been possible from Focal Fossa onwards.............

FocalPup32 and JammyPup32 are both 'mongrel' Ubuntu+Debian builds....... (but seem to work OK)

I prefer 32-bit builds even though all my hardware is 64-bit simply because there is such horrible variability in the lib64 architectures of different distros.

[mikewalsh]

I was only reminding that a pure 32-bit Ubuntu build has not been possible from Focal Fossa onwards.............

FocalPup32 and JammyPup32 are both 'mongrel' Ubuntu+Debian builds....... (but seem to work OK)

I prefer 32-bit builds even though all my hardware is 64-bit simply because there is such horrible variability in the lib64 architectures of different distros.

@peebee :-

Now THAT (^^^) I can go with. I would in all likelihood stick with 32-bit Pups myself, even on this up-to-date hardware - they seem to run faster, for a start! - were it not for the fact of needing a 64-bit OS in order to watch NetFlix..!

(I understand Google's reasoning for deprecating the 32-bit build of WideVine, though in my opinion they didn't do anybody any favours in doing so. But there's no getting away from the fact that even though 64-bit hardware will run a 32-bit OS, there's less and less usable software still being developed for 32-bit.....and eventually, the existing 'trickle' WILL dry up completely (building for a single 'arch' simplifies things all round for everyone, after all). When that happens, those users will be stuck with running old, out-of-date software.....though having said that, it shouldn't ever be a problem if the machine in question is always being used 'off-line', for instance.)

As always, it depends very much on the individual use-case. What will work for one person won't necessarily work for another. Hence the need for choice; otherwise we end up doing as MyCrudSoft, and developing one, 'common' bloated OS that attempts to be "all things to all men".....and making a ton of compromises in the process.

(*shrug*)

I freely admit, I "play" with an awful lot of software. But the number of applications I actually need to be productive is in fact quite small.

Mike.

[dimkr]

variability in the lib64 architectures of different distros.

So you're promoting the use of 32-bit distros that receives nearly zero QA, don't have mitigations against known security vulnerabilities and can't run modern applications (like the Chrome .deb package provided by Google and the VS Code .deb package provided by Microsoft, or proprietary DRM blobs), as an act of protest against inconsistency between distros?

[one]

peebee releases several 64 bit puppies besides his 32 bit ones:
ScPup64, LxPupSc64, Voidpup64, (Archpup64) - I can see no "act of protest", he does not "promote" the use of anything special, he expresses only his personal preference.

No drama, please ...

peace

[wanderer]

I see no issue here

I think everyone has agreed that the distrowatch version will be 64 bit

So people who want to will develop that version

Hopefully someone will develop a 32 bit version

The two are not related

One doesn't have to wait on the other.

So both hopefully will be available

Problem solved

Wanderer.

[dimkr]

One doesn't have to wait on the other.

Yes please

[ozsouth]

It seems to me that S15Pup 64 & 32 are being developed in parallel - debugging is simultaneous - and both are near completion, so I would expect both to be ready soon, without undue delay from either. The ubuntu flavours (64 & 32) are a little further away as a unit, mainly because peebee started S15 with an already updated base.

[wanderer]

In my opinion
The key here is that the 64 bit
Should not have to wait on the 32 bit

Even though they may be developed concurrently
They will always be different enough
So that one may be slower than the other
This is especially true since Ubuntu has dropped 32 bit
So that future ubuntus may have to be debian/ubuntu hybrids

But this does not pose a problem
When the 64 bit is ready it goes on distrowatch
When the 32 bit is ready it is made available
So everyone is happy

It looks like S15 will have both ready near each other
But even in this case it is important
That one version does not have to wait on the other

Wanderer

[josejp2424]

in my opinion should be the distro developed by @dimkr vanilla dpup.
it brings innovation in every sense. never a puppy was at its height. ( xwayland, pulseaudio or pipewire, synaptic ).
Also it is in constant development, and brings 32 and 64 bits architecture.
vanilla dpup should be in distrowatch.

[ozsouth]

@josejp2424 - dimkr has already said no to that - see: viewtopic.php?p=72748&sid=2c2f10978b9fc ... def#p72748

[wanderer]

hi all

peebee has posted that his S15 32 and 54 are "good to go"

as i understand he is waiting for a kernal update
to say they are ready to go on distrowatch

i am asking peebee to post when he feels S15 is ready to go on distrowatch on this thread
so everyone is clear when we need to contact distrowatch

and thanks again peebee and everyone for all the work you have done for the puppy community

wanderer

[peebee]

viewtopic.php?t=7464

[wiak]

I applaud recent revitalisation of FossaPup. However... Am I alone in feeling that current Ubuntu-based Puppy dev work should move to be primarily based on Jammy Jellyfish?
I note, for example, that Vupup thread's last post (Oct 28) has still to be answered so even that 'unofficial' Pup is apparently not supported particularly strongly: viewtopic.php?p=70619#p70619

Admittedly, I'm biased since I generally avoid Debian and Slackware (so not myself interested in what goes on there other than about general information and system util developements that work across distros). Rather I prefer distros based on Arch Linux, Void Linux, and Ubuntu (not necessarily in that order), but yes that's just me. Nevertheless, surely can't get overly-excited about dev work on FossaPup when that is a Ubuntu-based generation behind current?

[dimkr]

@user1234 started contributing to jammy64 (https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... shayrohila) and you can grab development snapshots at https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... ammy64.yml.

Anyone who wants to participate is welcome:
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... ibutor-101
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... -on-GitHub

[rockedge]

Nevertheless, surely can't get overly-excited about dev work on FossaPup when that is a Ubuntu-based generation behind current?

I considered Jammy but when I attempted to build one with woof-CE it was so incomplete and buggy including the build which needed coaxing to finish. I chose Fossapup64-9.6-CE because if we want something now for Distrowatch, then a proven platform that's still fully relevant then F96_4-radky3-CE is the logical way to proceed. Because now with radky3 it is really close to a finished stable release that at this time can compete with any system out there that is comparable.

It is polished, fast and Fossapup64's operational desktop and features are well known. Perfect for a right NOW solution.

Going with Jammy would be delaying deployment considerably when weighing in the facts.

Fact #1 is the number of dev's working on translating what we are putting together basically like a remaster to a working woof-CE recipe is very small. This means of course at least 6 months if not more before Jammy is up to speed and a release version decided upon. The Fosspup64 that F96_4-radky3 is, must be translated and merged into woof-CE. That in itself is daunting, at least as far as I see it and sounds like it will take along time to find that dev that'll know how to actually merge it. Too much time it will take to get a Jammy out there that can match the overall performance of F96 never mind KLV.

This operation commenced to meet a deadline.

We can if we were Micro$$, set Distrowatch up with S15 that's ready right now, stop production of F96-CE and F97-CE and switch to Jammypup64 (I don't like this name at all) that can be worked on by those who feel like it (maybe). Take 3-6 months to move all the F96 - F97 technology that fits into a new Jammypup64

[wiak]

@user1234 started contributing to jammy64 (https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... shayrohila) and you can grab development snapshots at https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... ammy64.yml.

As I said, I have nothing per se against further fossapup dev work and understand the discussed distrowatch driver. I was really just concerned if jammy development was not proceeding so good to hear user1234, at least, is working on that for Puppy.

Does the above mean that vupup itself is not going to be further developed to official Puppy release status?

Also, whilst I feel it is good someone working on jammypup, I doubt most forum members read woof-ce dev threads like alone understand them, but might well be interested in what ends up setting the concrete. For example, app additions or changes, look and feel alterations to gui and whatever.

My view, because of that, is that it would be additionally good if proposed structural changes could at least be briefly notified to this forum in case anyone wishes to comment since satisfying the likeliest users is surely important. A forum is the best location for less technical audience to have their say I think though not to the degree that major technical dev work gets delayed of course. I believe there is a woof-ce forum section that could be used. Otherwise I feel most all Puppy development decisions, even desktop, themes and apps to use or include, gtk, qt, or both, and so on will end up decided by the one or two driving woof-ce, effectively limiting larger forum involvement.

I do not develop Puppy myself, so my comment is written from the point of view of an occasional user only, but nevertheless I would be sorry to see the concept of do-ocracy limiting any potentially useful forum members voice, when that can be avoided via wider discussion without adversely impeding the main dev work.

Sorry for mistyped... on Android phone.

[wanderer]

hi all

as a user the 2 things i see as important at this time are

1. we have a submission to distrowatch so that they do not put us on the dormant list

2. we have one or more polished distros as candidates that can go on distrowatch now and in the future

it looks like both S15 and F96 meet these criteria

as a user its not important to me what the base of the distro is
i just want a polished distro to use

i assume that over time the gurus
will decide the best direction to take long term

but in my opinion puppy is unique
and really isn't tied to any particular base distro
so all avenues should be explored

wanderer

[rockedge]

We should find a way to have both on Distrowatch flying the Puppy Linux flag, if possible.

Who will initiate the submission(s) and how does it work?