Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Clarity wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 8:36 am

....
AND, many on the forum continue to misunderstand with a belief that a deliverable size translates to enormous RAM use when on the desktop.

If the SFS's are copied to RAM, there will be an increase of RAM usage (edit: but doesn't matter if you have lots of RAM, of course), that's why it would be good IMO to change the default to pfix=nocopy (as is planned, if I understood well).
Btw, from my user experience, copy to ram doesn't increase speed much (or perhaps not at all ).
What does increase speed for me (specially if the save storage is on a slow USB) is the option save at shutdown (or on demand), pupmode 13 , then the changes are running in (fast) RAM.

As I've been saying for several years, copying SFS files to RAM prior to their being mounted is generally nothing but a waste of RAM. In golden olden early 2000's hard drives were slow to read and write usually, so copying to RAM could in theory overcome that situation. However, back in these days many computers Puppy was being installed on had very little RAM anyway, which was more than a little bit of a catch22 sort of situation.

Unfortunately, some have touted/marketed one of the principal advantages of Puppy Linux being that it loads everything to RAM, which is really a negative; not the boasted about positive at all. In claiming that as a key Puppy difference to other distros they have ridiculously held back a needed improvement to Puppy operation, which is to change the default such that that RAM is not wasted in that manner.

It is not a coincidence that from its very first implementation over five years ago now, firstrib initrd as used in all current KL distro purposively only makes copy to RAM an option and NOT the default.

There are also several distros not discussed on Puppy forum that use aufs, and some maybe now overlayfs instead, in frugal install arrangements, so no real point of difference with Puppy there.

Having a relatively app complete implementation in smallish distro size, along with using own sysVinit based system scripts would be a point of difference, at least in terms of implementation, along with some utilities specially of Puppy design. Whether these are ever or always better or worse than available mainstream distros is a matter of opinion and preference. Unique can be nice in terms of fun creativity, but quality can be difficult to ensure. It's great as a hobby though especially when bored with mainstream polish.

thanks for this great analysis of the pros and cons of ram use vs cpu use vs storage use

i do believe that as wiak and others have pointed out

"Having a relatively app complete implementation in smallish distro size, along with using own sysVinit based system scripts"

is puppys main strength

i do also believe that small size, versatile implementation (frugal install etc) and the ability to modify the system to you own choosing
are great draws to the non guru public (me)
even if their actual benefits are often an illusion

so to recap
main selling points

small size -- complete set of light apps -- versatile implementation (frugal install etc) -- easily modified

wanderer

Copying SFS to RAM has value if the boot device is (very) slow.
Example: CD/DVD (=almost extinct), cheap USB flash drives.
Not everyone can afford SSD, or choose to run from internal disk.
One of Puppy's value propositions is that you can run (decently) it from any media (=even slow/bad ones), without commitment to the computer it being run on. Copying the SFS to RAM is one of the way to actually deliver that value proposition.

---

And replying to the long overdue question from @fredx181:

fredx181 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 7:31 pm

jamesbond wrote:

Common folks don't use operating systems. They use __applications__ that runs on top of the operating system, e.g. web browsing, word processing, spreadsheet, media players, audio editing, games, music / video authoring, livestreaming, servers, etc.

Why not aim to make Puppy a platform that can run as many useful applications as possible, with as little fuss as possible? In other word, the most compatible platform to run useful applications? All other stuff (technology, etc) should be subservient to this purpose. Along with portability, user-friendliness, instant recovery if one makes a mistake, that would make Puppy stand out.

That sounds as music in my ears Can you perhaps go in more detail about your view and how, compared to how things are done now, e.g. how latest Puppies (or others) are currently made ?

We need these two:
a) easy of installing applications from the the repo sources, or
b) ease of installing/running applications from non-repo sources (e.g. portable tarball, appimages, snap, flatpak, etc).

Some of the commonly seen complaints:
1. Apps don't run due to missing libraries (this applies to both repo and non-repo sources)
2. Apps don't install properly (=installation causes breakage in other part of the system; this is usually a problem for apps from repo sources).
3. Can't install/run apps non-repo applications because:
a. Tools for installation not available (snap/flatpak)
b. No directory of available non-repo apps (e.g. no listing of available AppImages, etc)
c. No integration - after I download AppImage, then what? (same concern for flatpak/snap).
d. And of course, the favourite one: I run a different flavour/version of Puppy, and I want an app which is only available from the repo of a different Puppy, how do I get that to my system (and have it working)?

Certain puppies are better than others in this respect. It's going to be hard to meet __all__ of these, but I suppose certain compromises can be made

Certainly if someone chooses to run a distro from a cheap slow USB drive they may have issues and copying to RAM prove sometimes a workaround remedy. But all the distros discussed in their own thread areas of the forum can of course be run from RAM (set via an optional boot argument), and I'd be surprised if the likes of Slax or antiX or Porteus couldn't do the same, though I haven't checked. Point I make again though, per my same comment over the years, is that copying to RAM is a dubious default, in terms of suggesting that is an asset - rather, if a user chooses to use any slow media, such as CD/DVD or cheap and possibly thus slow USB flash drives then the provision for copying to RAM can be arranged via a boot manager kernel line argument, but with default arrangement to NOT copy to RAM. However, if majority Pup users prefer the loss of RAM, presumably meaning they tend to use slow boot devices, then up to them. Not a good default IMO nevertheless since makes Puppy look by default as a bit of a RAM hog, when really it doesn't need to be.

@jamesbond

Very relevant comment. This is why I use Solus daily. It’s designed for the user.

wanderer wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 2:06 pm

thanks for this great analysis of the pros and cons of ram use vs cpu use vs storage use

i do believe that as wiak and others have pointed out

"Having a relatively app complete implementation in smallish distro size, along with using own sysVinit based system scripts"

is puppys main strength

i do also believe that small size, versatile implementation (frugal install etc) and the ability to modify the system to you own choosing
are great draws to the non guru public (me)

The above do seem to me to be the actual points that market Puppy Linux as a unique distro; that in combination of it being a simple distro to use and administer, at least in terms of it primary being a single root user run system (albeit with the likes of user spot as a workaround for some issues some apps have running as user root).

Whilst some Linux users really condemn the likes of Puppy for running as root user desktop, there is no doubt of the simple convenience doing so provides to its users and I really don't seem many reports of Puppy users finding their systems being hacked very often if even at all. Having said that, I don't believe there is any truth at all in any claim that Puppy is more secure than other distros so not a good idea to claim that, basically with no evidence or what is often nonsense technical arguments as a marketing strategy. False claims or claims lacking evidence should be avoided; otherwise none of any other marketing blurb can be reliably trusted and thus believed.

There as been a very useful discussion regarding Puppy's nature on this thread. Making it very difficult to finalize even a draft of the revision to Puppy's DistroWatch page.

Wiak, "Having said that, I don't believe there is any truth at all in any claim that Puppy is more secure than other distros".

I doubt that any operating system, however configured, can permanently prevent penetration by a dedicated hacker. The best suggestion I've run across for keeping a secret now is to share it with no one and immediately leap into a Black Hole. Future developments might eventually reveal a way to unscramble even what that does to information.

But as a PRACTICAL matter --remembering that there's a distinction between privacy and security-- does anyone know of a simpler or better way to achieve security than using a trustworthy VPN run from a Puppy on a USB-Stick under PupMode 5 after the Stick is Unplugged? How would that be vulnerable?* Is there any personal computer operating system which can provide greater security?

Yes, I appreciate that neither every Puppy nor the amount of RAM in every computer can support the above.

* Other than employing applications which will write to hardware.

Answering one of my own questions: (1) Deny access to hard-drives and (2) do not have a Swap since it (as I understand it) being on the hard-drive presents a passage into it and (as I understand it, unlike RAM) is not completely cleared on shut-down.

What else?

In essence Puppy, itself, is a container, isolated from whatever other operating system is on the computer. But now, how to you get information out of it. How do you distinguish the information in it that you want to preserve from information you may not know is there?

bigpup wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 1:05 pm

the downside is that you can't unplug the flash drive you're live booting from

That is a feature that some people want to have.

Just read a post, of someone exactly wanting to be able to unplug the USB stick booting BookwormPup64 from. The save is on the internal drive.

If they unplug it.

Reporting all kinds of desktop icon and pinboard issues.

Has this ability to unplug the USB booting from, been removed from BookwormPup64?

That was suppose to be the big reason to allow saves for USB installs, to be placed on other drives.

bigpup wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 8:12 am

Has this ability to unplug the USB booting from, been removed from BookwormPup64?

You should be able to do this but only if you boot with pfix=copy, or if you have enough RAM and neither pfix=copy nor pfix=nocopy was specified (default is to copy, if half your RAM is enough).

hi all

is there any way to put a link to the

announcement thread for bookworm64 and the
announcement thread to bookworm32

underneath the screenshots of each on the puppy linux home page

this will satisfy the request of distrowatch
for a link to the announcement page
and a screenshot

i am going to email jesse again just to remind him of our request

wanderer

hi all

i am withdrawing this offer
i intend to try to use debiandog
to accomplish this goal

however i still think this is something the puppy community should look into


*** withdrawn ***
this is an offer of a commission to develop a puppy

i think many people in the puppy community
underestimate the appeal of small size and modularity
to the general public
(yes i am aware of the limitations of this model)

i know that small size and the ability to easily modify puppy
is what brought me into the puppy community

when i got here i was also impressed with
the comprehensive light suite of applications
which is also about small size

the other qualities
flexibility of implementation, ease of use and general polish
were icing on the cake

woof-ce has become the de-facto puppy builder
but over time it has become more difficult to use and maintain
this is because it has been made to build a very complex puppy
most people cannot use it

what i have always wanted to see is a minimal modular puppy

goingnuts built his pup-n-go
but did not continue its development

the requirements for the commission are

1. must be based on debian 12
2. must have a command line only core as small and simple as possible
3. must have a desktop sfs file (jwm and rox, text editor, terminal)
4. must have a browser sfs file (firefox)
5. must have a media player sfs file (dont know which one would be best)
6. and a puppy general utilities sfs file

i think there are many advantages for the puppy community
if this minimal modular woof-ce puppy is developed

1. it will provide a tiny modular puppy that will generate interest in the linux community
2. it will provide a simplified entry level woof-ce
that may encourage more people to become involved in woof-ce use and developement
3. it may be useful as a base for the general application support platform puppy
that jamesbond and others have advocated
4. it might be interesting and fun



wanderer

Very well put! Don't forget it needs a"gui".As for myself, being a long time puppy user, I am content
with the offerings we now have available.

hi tosim

thanks for your reply

the gui is the desktop sfs file

my main distro is upup32 (thanks peebee)
which is perfect for me
(cant beat perfection)

however as i said i think having a minimal modular puppy will greatly add to the appeal of puppy

wanderer

hi all

whoever put the links under the screenshots of bookwormpup
on the puppy linux home page

thank you thank you thank you

i will now email jesse at distrowatch again to remind him of our submission

wanderer

email reminder to distrowatch sent

wanderer

The reason Editors exist is that authors are too close to their work to be unbiased, The following draft "Information Page" needs a new set of eyes.

Puppy Linux is a family of operating systems published by members of the Puppy community using the open-source, configurable and modifiable, application named woof. Woof combines structures unique to Puppy with those from another Linux –such as debian, Ubuntu, Slackware and Void – to generate an operating system 'binary-compatible' with that other Linux, but more portable and modular. Modularity can help a User work-around the limitations of an older computer, take advantage of new hardware and extend the useful life of both it and a functional Puppy.

While each Puppy is different, Puppys provide:

(1) Portability. Puppys can be booted from all storage media, e.g. CDs, DVDs, USB-Keys and Hard-drives. When deployed to either a USB-Key or Hard-drive a Puppy only requires its own folder; not an entire partition. It can share the partition used by Windows, another LinuxOS and other Puppys.

(2) A set of applications for commonplace activities. Often applications with low RAM needs are chosen. Included are tools relating to the creation, modification and use of modules; and for diagnosing problems.

(3) Using one or more Package Managers that set can be augmented with applications directly from the repository of that Puppy’s ‘binary-compatible’, and from among the applications created for that Puppy or for use under several Puppys.

(4) Modularity. Puppys are conceived, built and operate as modular file-systems on storage. Those modules are either copied into or mounted in RAM. As each original module is READ-Only, the User has an option to preserve changes to settings, configurations and augment the built-in applications by creating a SaveFile or SaveFolder on storage: ‘persistence’. To Puppys a Save is just another module. A boot-argument permits the User to boot up without the Save into a 'pristine environment'.If desired another Save with different applications can be created and choices offered on boot-up. Alternate Saves facilitate experimentation and (of value on RAM-Challenged computers) booting into different environments for different purposes. Saves can be easily copied or backed-up.
(4a) The original READ-Only modules can be modified: the ‘base’ module to exclude and include applications; Kernels swapped; and ancillary READ-Only modules that are loaded on boot-up discarded, created or modified.
(4b) Ever update an application only to discover the update is worse than its predecessor? Puppys can mount external applications and application-suites packaged as Read-Only ‘squashed file-systems’, SFSes, and un-mount them when no longer needed. An unmounted SFS uses no RAM. SFSe are an alternative to 'installing applications’. Commonly used applications are already available as SFSes. A User can create others. SFSes do not overwrite SFSes.
(4c) Puppys can use portable applications which, if external, require no RAM when not in use. Many portable applications are already available. Portables can be easily backed-up before updating.

Some Puppys can use some AppImages available on the Web.

Many commonly used applications are available in more than one format. A User can choose which is best for a specific computer or objective.

-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-
Since modularithy and its advantages are not 'common currency' among Linux users and especially Windows users, I believe that some explanatory detail has to be provided in a manner that will not turn off 'newbys' as Linux-geek-speak. The sections above in blue may, however, be unnecessary.

I included a mention of tools and diagnostic because I think they are a strength we didn't know we had. flatpks and snaps are not the panacea they claim to be. You may be familiar with my crttique of Flatpaks: gramps as a 32 Mb deb vs a Gb flatpak after installing th 2.5 GB foundation, or rather failing to because of sketchy wifi. Recently i setup Kubuntu. It's web-brower is firefox as a snap. An update broke it; There was no way to diagnose the issue. Un-install/Re-install didn't work. A deb alterntive was not immediately available but could be downloaded; and installed with the same error . Eventually I had to download the firefox tar.gz --unpacked its a portable-- and create a menu to it.

p.s. Now that I've decided to stop thinking about it, I have an idea for a way to combine and more succinctly state the contents of 4b & c. Will post tomorrow.

Hello @mikeslr ... looks good!

Yes, I think 4b could be eliminated and it wont detract from the message content you offer.

Even though I recognize the pride that is placed on SFS use, I also, like you, see that the future is fluid enough to know that yesterday's SFSs could become portables, flatpacks, appimages, etc going into the future. And other formats could/will come along and be embraced in future WoofCE Pups that would make the current description obsolete. Thus, being as accurate as you intend and clear as you describe, you don't want your efforts to require any future work to maintain validity, where possible.

That said, in the future, you wont have to come back to change anything that you have, even with the 4b removed.

Just a thought as it may also reduce the workload to a final accurate write-up that will stand the test of time.

@mikeslr

Are all builds of PuppyLinux truly 100% binary compatible with their hosts?

As some applications require systemd, this is not included.

Also "full system updates" are not encouraged as they may break the OS.

4b refers to Aufs enabled kernels (?)

Good work

So our new flagship pup, Bookwormpup64_10.0.6, ships with 6.1.76 overlayfs-only usrmerge kernel. We have come a long way this year.

Jasper wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:21 am

@mikeslr

Are all builds of PuppyLinux truly 100% binary compatible with their hosts?

As some applications require systemd, this is not included.

Yes, above is incorrect. In fact, Puppy is 'imperfect' in terms of upstream repo compatibility. Newer debian-based pups that can use apt/dpkg are closer to fully compatible, but not, for example, using systemd results in lack of compatibility and issues stem from that. Also Puppy is a single root user design so multiuser components are missing (no PAM I think?). So some lack of compatibility with upstream tends to be a Puppy weakness, not a strength.

Those who need pretty much perfect Debian binary compatible app installation can use Debiandogs (though probably 'better' when built to use systemd). Alternatively, KL distro are pretty much completely compatible with upstream, be that for debian, ubuntu, void, or arch Linux, since the root filesystem firstrib build system creates uses upstream system components (though doesnt need to...). KL's featurefull point of difference comes from its FirstRib overlayfs-based-layering initrd that is particularly general purpose (doesn't care what underlying root filesystem design is used) and also since FR build system builds from scratch , so can easily build small variants with alternative desktop managers or init systems (like runit or systemd) and so on.

On the whole, I otherwise think the quality of mikeslr's wording about the forum's Puppy Linux distro characteristics is very good and close to complete.

Hi mikeslr, that is a wow, quite detailed write up.

I would pare it down to some main points, taking into consideration the audience we are trying to relate to is both regular Linux users and new introductees to Linux.

A raw example of what I mean follows

Puppy Linux is a family of operating systems that is portable and modular. It is designed to boot from any storage media, e.g. CDs, DVDs, USB-Keys and Hard-drives, that the computer supports for booting. Modularity can help a user work-around the limitations of an older computer, take advantage of new hardware and extend the useful life of both it and a functional Puppy. Puppy ships with a complete set of applications for commonplace activities that includes tools for the creation, modification and use of modules and for diagnosing problems. Puppy is now capable of using multiple package managers blah blah blah. Puppy does not support SystemD and relies on blah blah blah which allows for more personal control of the operating system. This operating system can selectively save your operating system changes on the fly or during shutdown to a save directory or a save file, this is called a Frugal Install and is one of your setup choices during first run. You can also deny all saves and even create your own personalized version using the included remaster utilities. Probably the best part of Puppy is the friendly support you can get at the Puppy Linux Forum that specializes in helping new Linux users.

Maybe helpful, maybe not!

I like the elegant writing style mikeslr employed, but let's take that, try to pare it down, and fix a few details or ambiguities.

For example, Puppy is nowadays primarily 'built' using an opensource build system called 'woofCE'.

By the way, I don't myself think it is good idea, with the future and flexibility in mind, to insist that Puppy does not support systemd. Doesn't just now, but why not, as an option later?

If no-systemd is a true choice (not out of laziness or short on development skills, or whatever) it is ok IMHO. For example like Devuan is without systemd, it does have some limitations of course that the user has to accept, or use something else, simple.

fredx181 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 4:07 pm

If no-systemd is a true choice (not out of laziness or short on development skills, or whatever) it is ok IMHO. For example like Devuan is without systemd, it does have some limitations of course that you'll have to accept, or use something else, simple.

Well, it is 'ok' of course, if that is thought of as a marketing strategy to attract these people who seem to pretty much hate systemd. In that case we must avoid anyone ever adding systemd use as an option to Puppy.

wiak wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 4:18 pm

fredx181 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 4:07 pm

If no-systemd is a true choice (not out of laziness or short on development skills, or whatever) it is ok IMHO. For example like Devuan is without systemd, it does have some limitations of course that you'll have to accept, or use something else, simple.

Well, it is 'ok' of course, if that is thought of as a marketing strategy to attract these people who seem to pretty much hate systemd. In that case we must avoid anyone ever adding systemd use as an option to Puppy.

Or warn the user, something like: Warning: this Puppy uses systemd ! edit: sorry, I'm one of those systemd haters.
edit: well, correction, l just hate it if systemd becomes the standard, if there would be no choice anymore to use others.

By todays standards, Puppy Linux remains a reasonably small distro, that continues to provide an impressive range of often small applications and utilities that provide a great deal of every day needed functionality. It is also simple to install, easy to maintain, and full of flexible features that make it fun to play with.

That's Puppy Linux.

All the technical details about why, in terms of layered file system frugal install structure and so on, are neither unique nor important to explain in an introduction to Puppy as a great wee continuing to be developed distro (these union style layering 'tricks' are well known mechanisms provided by the kernel or as patches or even user level software addons that other distros can and do often employ for their own purposes).

Hey, but, here is the problem... woof-CE does not itself, as a build system, reflect that elegance and simplicity.

Tons of people love playing with Puppy Linux. Very few 'love playing' with woof-CE.

mikeslr wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 9:38 pm

(3) Using one or more Package Managers that set can be augmented with applications directly from the repository of that Puppy’s ‘binary-compatible’, and from among the applications created for that Puppy or for use under several Puppys.

It's very typical for a Linux distro to have a package manager and having multiple ones is a reason not to use a distro: frontends like GNOME Software (which supports both apt and flatpak) exists exactly because people don't like having multiple package managers! And the claim that the offered packages are compatible is a little suspicious (does Puppy have bad reputation of allowing the installation of incompatible packages?).

mikeslr wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 9:38 pm

An unmounted SFS uses no RAM.

Unless it was copied to RAM during boot. In this case, it still occupies RAM if you unmount it.

(4), (4a) and (4b) sound too technical and too long to me, I think it would be enough to say that Puppy supports various persistency modes (that range from no persistency at all to full persistency), supports multiple stored sessions (on internal drives or removable media) and can be extended through read-only addons that can be installed alongside traditional packages that came from the package manager.

There's one technical detail that I think should be added: Puppy was designed to be fast even if booting from a flash drive or a slow drive, and it can increase the drive's lifespan depending on the chosen persistency mode. This is unique to Puppy.

And "open-source, configurable and modifiable, application named woof" is inaccurate because most Puppy releases were built with manual build steps after the woof-CE run, and were built using a modified woof-CE that was never published (so it's not really "open-source"). I don't think that users care too much about how a Puppy release was made, and if they do, they care more about unique features or advantages.