Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

wanderer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 4:46 am

i know wiak

but we have to have a temporary fix to keep the page up

this will give us a year to decide on or make the next candidate

do you have any suggestions

Fossapup is more recent than Bionic, but ageing. Apt/dpkg is a fine package management system, but been available since 2013 here via DebianDogs with similar features in terms of functionality, size, and flexibility to Pups whilst being very compatible with upstream Debian or Ubuntu, but that didn't prevent release of BionicPup nor Fossapup so no reason there couldn't be a JammyPup, for example, but I've only noticed a 32bit release in that direction, which would be for much smaller audience that still uses 32bit distros I suppose. Of the apt/dpkg capable new Pups, I prefer Vupup, though originally that was also because I didn't like Vdpup when it was first released (and haven't kept track of it since) - overall, I tend to prefer Ubuntu-based distros myself, when apt being used, but that's just a personal preference.

I like VoidPup because it remains a pup in the sense that it also intentionally handles dotpets via PPM (not that I like PPM, but Puppy has always prided itself in having PPM dotpet capability no matter whether you were using a Slacko, Debian, Ubuntu or whatever based Pup), though xbps is a big winner - reason I like that one is that upstream Void isn't itself such a huge distro so its packages seem to me to fit well with Puppy lesser-bloat-philosophy whereas apt/dpkg makes distros using that package manager just another 'Debian/Ubuntu' distro overall.

KLV-Airedale (also using Void's xbps) isn't a Pup at all, though the idea of a 'Kennel' release is a different concept anyway, since the idea allows for using component parts from any distro project featured on this forum - but it certainly isn't 'Puppy Linux'; as a separate distro it might benefit itself from being notified to Distrowatch since most of the Linux world probably doesn't know it exists.

Puppy Linux own identity has been stated as via woof-CE creation - I thought both Vupup and Vdpup were produced via official woof-CE, but reading above posts it seems the Vanilla Pups might be created from a dimkr fork of woof-CE with some parts not pushed back into woof-CE official? I don't know about VoidPups relation to official woof-CE either - maybe forks it and then adds extras externally? Is there any other Pup being considered as an official release - for example, is there a Jammy64 release being worked on somewhere(?). Puppylinux.com homesite doesn't indicate any new official releases that I've noticed so nothing seems to be designated 'official' at the moment, which makes the Distrowatch submission a bit tricky.

One type of distro I wouldn't put on Distrowatch are 'remasters' - these are just revamped versions of the originals. The originals are the main developments overall in the sense that they are constructed from a reproducable build system. Some remasters are excellent of course, so my comment is debatable.

Would seem to me that VoidPup, Vdpup, and Vupup are all recent and maintained Puppy releases. They are all somewhat different so seems to me they all need notified to Distrowatch if presence wanted there. EasyOS already there, as if FatDog I believe. KLV not. DebianDogs, never that I noticed.

In terms of how distros get notified to Distrowatch will be different depending on whether a distro is a community-based release or an individual's release. Traditional Puppy was not a community-based release distro - it had one prime creator who made all inclusion and release decisions. That changed with the concept of woof-CE and then there is supposed to be a team that makes releases. Many distros have a team that make distro decisions including release announcements. FatDog certainly has an identified 'team' behind it. Not so sure about recent Puppy releases - these seem to be release by individual's on the whole, whether they are using woof-CE as the main build mechanism or not. Is there even really an active 'Team' behind woof-CE nowadays? The 'CE' designation is only as meaningful as the active composition of the team behind such community builds. I'm not myself convinced with ideas of 'official' or 'pure' when it comes to the build of any distro. Compatible or less compatible, with say upstream distro, is more understandable to me.

as i said

my only purpose here is to keep the puppy distrowatch page up

i feel that if anyone eventually finds their way to the forum
they will look around and choose the particular version that suits them
or they may make their own new version
not blindly accept the version that is listed on distrowatch
its just a lead in

if all of this goes through
hopefully it will keep the page up for at least a year
which should be enough time to decide what course the community wants to take

but they community needs to be involved
both in the nominating and voting
and in the development and maintenance of the distrowatch puppy
or you will end up with some idiot like me making the decision

so it is up to you puppy community
nominate, vote, develop and maintain

wanderer

personally i am not interested in the official puppy nonsense
all creativity benefits the entire community
so in my opinion every distro or project should be showcased

wanderer

wiak wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:21 am

it seems the Vanilla Pups might be created from a dimkr fork of woof-CE with some parts not pushed back into woof-CE official?

Exactly the opposite!

Vanilla Dpup is built with a fork of woof-CE, created at the time 9.2.0 was released. I push bug fixes to upstream woof-CE and cherry-pick some of them into this fork. The only purpose of this fork is to protect Vanilla Dpup from new bugs and regressions in upstream, not to revive Puppy development in a separate distro.

It is possible to build dpup using upstream woof-CE, and anyone who wants to build an "official" Puppy based on it is free to do so.

hi dimkr

so there is your answer

if someone would use the mainstream woof-ce to build a vanilla dpup
that build would not conflict with your distro on the waiting list at distrowatch

but of course they would have to actually do it

wanderer

wanderer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:19 am

if someone would use the mainstream woof-ce to build a vanilla dpup
that build would not conflict with your distro on the waiting list at distrowatch

I don't have a problem with that: all my work is GPL-licensed. Anyone who wants to build their own dpup derivative is free to do so.

I have only two requests: please don't call it "Vanilla Dpup", and don't call Vanilla Dpup an "official" Puppy.

i propose

yours

dmkrs vanilla dpup

and the rebuild

chocolate dpup

just kidding

thanks a lot for clarifying things
you are doing groundbreaking stuff

i hope someone will take you up on your offer
it will be a great asset to the puppy community

thanks for all your work

wanderer

wanderer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:30 am

i hope someone will take you up on your offer

Me too, as long as that work happens in upstream woof-CE (like Vanilla Dpup) and can be improved upon by others. Puppy has a bus factor of 1: if the developer of a certain Puppy release refuses to release the x+1 version, that branch of Puppy's development is dead, and Puppy has no trunk users can return to.

Chocolate Doom was one of my inspirations when I decided to build Vanilla Dpup like this.

What we need is someone who volunteers to build the dpup equivalent of Crispy Doom. A group of volunteers would be even better, especially if decisions are made via discussions, issues, pull requests and reviews.

hi dimkr

followed your links

truly awesome analogies

Vanilla Dpup is to Chocolate Dpup

as

Chocolate Doom is to Crispy Doom

thanks again

wanderer

Just to clarify: I only maintain BionicPup32 - BionicPup64 was built by @666philb

and as has been mentioned they are both OLD and not good adverts for Puppy in 2022 - and I think they have already been featured on Distrowatch previously!!

They are also quite different in look and feel and some design aspects - for instance only BionicPup64 has Quickpet.

I would definitely vote NO

hi peebee

unless you approve
this cannot go forward

so unless the puppy community wants to nominate another candidate
we are at a standstill

i will await further input from the puppy community

thanks for all your work peebee

wanderer

I've lost track of it all. I originally thought the Vanilla Pups were official woof-CE builds but just not yet designated as official by 01micko or whoever so decides. Then I gathered it was using woof-CE but with extra stuff, making it a fork, a better fork even, but I've decided I don't know so will say no more about it! Only thing I am left wondering is that if there is a better than official Puppy Linux being released, where does that leave Puppy itself.

I still tend to think VoidPup is the nearest to what most might identify as Puppy. Yes it has Void Linux package manager xbps and not just using Void's repos, but it also has traditional Puppy dotpet support I believe. Apt/dpkg or xbps - just different upstream repos so not in themselves making any such distro a non-Pup, just a new 'sort' of Pup that embraces official package managers (and maybe traditional Pup package managers too). However, it seems clear that dimkr is not contributing his Vanilla creations as Puppy Linux official, so that for me leaves possibility of VoidPup taking that accolade??? Or what other Pup is there at the moment that is positioned such that it could be designated as the latest official Pup? I suspect there is no such thing as an official Pup anymore otherwise so the official woof-CE designated 'rulebook' would need re-written.

What makes Void different from say Debian. Is it just the packages or is there an enormous difference in the workings of the operating system itself? I don't care for different package managers myself (I don't install stuff), if I do need something I would download directly from the software repository and convert to sfs or use a portable. Ubuntu/Debian has the most software available for download as far as I know?

amethyst wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 9:17 am

What makes Void different from say Debian. Is it just the packages or is there an enormous difference in the workings of the operating system itself? I don't care for different package managers myself (I don't install stuff), if I do need something I would download directly from the software repository and convert to sfs or use a portable. Ubuntu/Debian has the most software available for download as far as I know?

Void Linux itself uses runit rather than systemd or sysVinit, but off the top of my head I can't remember if VoidPup adopted runit.
The Void packages seem to be put together somewhat differently, though I haven't examined the details. Personally I find Void-based systems very fast for some reason but I can't quantify that. As far as package management goes I find apt/dpkg and Void's xbps very close in terms of excellence. I agree though, more software in Ubuntu or Debian repos, but Void isn't too bad. My own easy favourite overall is Arch Linux base though - plenty in the official repos and pretty much anything else in Arch AUR. So I use three distros regularly at home: KLV-Airedale being fastest xfce distro I've played with and Void based, Zorin lite which is Ubuntu-based, and currently moving back to Arch-base to satisfy my own preference. For a slim Puppy, VoidPup is the one for me simply because I already have too many dpkg/apt based distros that satisfy my need (though wish there was a Jammy-based UbuntuDog since I've never liked Debian itself - packages seem older in Debian and Ubuntu is so well supported via various PPAs).

Vupup seemed pretty good to me too though - and good if it also tests out the likes of Pipewire and Wayland though these are going to become defacto standard in all distro releases sooner or later it seems anyway. Of course if a person does like to run with the wind in terms of latest of everything then forget all of these and use Fedora Rawhide... or a firstribit variant of that.

wiak wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:38 am

amethyst wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 9:17 am

What makes Void different from say Debian. Is it just the packages or is there an enormous difference in the workings of the operating system itself? I don't care for different package managers myself (I don't install stuff), if I do need something I would download directly from the software repository and convert to sfs or use a portable. Ubuntu/Debian has the most software available for download as far as I know?

Void Linux itself uses runit rather than systemd or sysVinit, but off the top of my head I can't remember if VoidPup adopted runit.
The Void packages seem to be put together somewhat differently, though I haven't examined the details. Personally I find Void-based systems very fast for some reason but I can't quantify that. As far as package management goes I find apt/dpkg and Void's xbps very close in terms of excellence. I agree though, more software in Ubuntu or Debian repos, but Void isn't too bad. My own easy favourite overall is Arch Linux base though - plenty in the official repos and pretty much anything else in Arch AUR. So I use three distros regularly at home: KLV-Airedale being fastest xfce distro I've played with and Void based, Zorin lite which is Ubuntu-based, and currently moving back to Arch-base to satisfy my own preference. For a slim Puppy, VoidPup is the one for me simply because I already have too many dpkg/apt based distros that satisfy my need (though wish there was a Jammy-based UbuntuDog since I've never liked Debian itself - packages seem older in Debian and Ubuntu is so well supported via various PPAs).

Vupup seemed pretty good to me too though - and good if it also tests out the likes of Pipewire and Wayland though these are going to become defacto standard in all distro releases sooner or later it seems anyway. Of course if a person does like to run with the wind in terms of latest of everything then forget all of these and use Fedora Rawhide... or a firstribit variant of that.

Interesting that your overall favorite is Arch. Did you ever give peebee's ArchPups a run? I use the 32 bit ArchPup on my old netbook, along with
ScPup32. Quite smooth and behaves itself very well. Here's the forum discussion for ArchPup https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=56

wanderer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:19 am

well

the community has to nominate and vote for it

and the developer has to present, maintain and update it

hello ... anyone want to do that ?

wanderer

Unfortunately, that is IT......in a nutshell. Wanderer has hit the nail on the head.

From what I can see of it:-

• 01micko may - or may not - be still involved, or even still interested. We just don't know; he hasn't been seen on the forum for about a year.

• 666philb may have decided he's had enough. (I wouldn't blame him; he has provided 4 very solid LTS-release 'buntu-derived Puppies over the last several years. He hasn't posted for around 6 months.)

Out of the crop of 'regular' devs that were active when I first joined the community, only peebee and Dima are still 'at it'. Barry himself is now pursuing his own projects, though is of course still interested and willing to dispense advice.

Anyone who decides - for the hell of it! - to take Dima's suggestion to heart, and start producing a 'new' Puppy, is going to need to be aware of just what they're letting themselves in for. Because as soon as that 'new', 'official' Puppy is released, the community is going to expect them to continue maintaining & updating it. Are they prepared for that?

The KLV 'project', led by rockedge, and with contributions from a few other 'regulars' is certainly shaping-up very nicely. Wiak's 'FirstRib' work is being used by a number of other people, from what I understand, so that's proving useful. Dima's work with the 'Vanilla' Pups is absolutely solid, as always. Fred's work with the 'Dogs' is appreciated by many. I doubt we can really involve FatDog in this discussion, since it's been its own self-contained project for long enough, and has its own website/Distrowatch page already.

It seems to me that our community is at something of a crossroads, as far as 'official' development is concerned. Where, exactly, does the community go from here? Does anybody want to become an 'official' developer, with all the hard work that entails?

(For myself, it's never really been my cup of tea. I don't possess the attention-to-detail, the 'single-mindedness' necessary to see any project like this through to completion. I'll stick to what little I know, which is mostly packaging/re-packaging......FWIW.)

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

I can't give any recommendations myself - mostly I use older, established Pups - though if I did I would have to give a nod towards Dima's work, despite him saying it's not actually an 'official' Puppy..? peebee's work is also solid, as always, though Peter tends to concentrate more on 32-bit development. I would be happy to use more of his builds, were it not for the debacle with Google deprecating 32-bit Widevine; I have to use a 64-bit OS to be able to satisfy my NetFlix cravings!

I wish I could be more positive. I daresay there are those who will say, "Well, if you've nothing concrete to say, then don't post..."

(*shrug*)

Mike.

What is the definition of a developer? For me it's someone who starts a completely new project and builds from there. I mean, running an existing 'general" building script to produce newer versions of stuff is not really development, is it? As I understand it anyone can actually just run the woof building script and produce a Puppy (but I'm probably simplifying as I have never really had the interest to do it myself so probably totally out of line). Of course, we are grateful to those who do spend their energy producing anything of note.

hi all

all is not lost

as mikewalsh just enumerated
there are a myriad of different distros
being developed by puppy community members

some are old
some are new
some are produced by woof-ce
some are produced by other systems

all however have one thing in common
they have the puppy spirit

that is a similar view of what is desirable in a linux distro

we get over 300 hits on distrowatch a day (now 25 in the rankings)
and have 2443 members on our forum

this is a lot of interest and involvement



now sit down because i dont want to shock you


i dont think there needs to be an official puppy



we have endlessly toyed with the idea of a community edition
but developers want to do their own thing
they do this for fun
they dont want it to become work
especially since they dont get paid

the way i look at it
there are 2 pieces to this

1. is the puppy community
where everyone is doing their own thing for fun
and by the way making a lot of great stuff while they have fun

2. the other is the distrowatch page
all they ask is that we post a distro
and update it once a year
they dont care what distro it is

why dont we just pick one of the many projects
that puppy members are working on for fun
post it on distrowatch
and update it once a year

we can even change it now and then
so everyone's project gets some appreciation

as i said many times before
in my opinion
if someone manages to get to the forum
they look around
and find the distros that suit them
or maybe even make their own
they dont stay tied to whats on the distrowatch page


what do you say guys
what do we want to put on our distrowatch page


wanderer

@wanderer :-

From what you say, Distrowatch only wants a once-a-year update to keep us "current", yes?

I think your suggestion has merit. If somebody is prepared to 'update' Distrowatch with the requisite details, I reckon doing more frequent updates, and taking it in turns to showcase everybody's work is probably the fairest way of all.....especially if each subsequent update is worded to make it clear that although the "featured" Puppy will have its own distinct way of doing things, it's still part of a whole 'stable' of related community releases.

This would in itself let visitors become aware of the huge variety of different builds this marvellous community of ours creates, and help them to realise just HOW varied the output from the community really is. I believe that by taking this route, you could even feature some of the more professionally-finished re-masters, provided that this 'status' is made clear, and that the 'parent' Puppy is clearly mentioned.

I can't see how you CAN have just one release that is supposed to represent the community as a whole.

Yah. "Community-wide showcasing". I'm in agreement with that approach, since it would be more representative of what we really get up to here in Puppyland, and would cement the idea that it's not just a "dev-team" thing, but that the whole community gets involved, one way or another. Anybody else have any views on this?

Mike.

@wanderer
@mikewalsh

Big +1 for mikewalsh's idea. As he said, what a great opportunity to showcase Puppy's diversity.

Thanks mike,
wizard

hi guys

a lot of people have mentioned voidpup
how about putting that distro on our distrowatch page to start

its new and being developed

does that fit the bill

wanderer

I go along with @amethyst in selecting FossaPup, as it is a few years newer than BionicPup.
(IMHO, VoidPup may be a little "too much" for a newbie to Puppy.)

My vote goes to an S15 Pup as the best candidate for distrowatch

BarryK has approved the idea (even if he is reluctant to be seen as the main decision maker now)
Slackware Pups have been the main official Pup before
Many traditional Puppy characteristics can be maintained while also moving things forward as appropriate
Easy to still support 32bit (to a large extent) as well as 64bit
The ScPups and the Slackos are already very good

If peebee is willing to be the main developer and others are willing to help out with development, obviously 01micko should be spoken to if he is still in contact, but if he is busy with other things I can't see him objecting. It wouldn't need to use the name "Slacko".

To clear up the miss understandings.

These are already posted on the Puppy Linux Distrowatch page.
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy

Bionicpup32 and 64
They are Puppy Linux 8.0

Fossapup64 9.5
It is Puppy Linux 9.5

Xenialpup32 and 64
They are Puppy Linux 7.5

So, forget about these Puppy versions.

Also, Distrowatch did want any new releases to follow a strict version number release.
Example:
5.5-> 6.0-> 7.0-> 7.5-> 8.0-> 9.5, etc...........

So, they think the next one will be version 10.0 or 10.5 or 11.0

May have to get them to understand, that versions of Puppy are now just a name, not a specific version number.

i think its important to have both a 32 and a 64 bit version if possible

how about S15pup
is anyone willing to build it

a good old woof-ce standard puppy with devx.sfs etc

wanderer

Does anyone actually use S15? First time I've heard of it, is it the newest Slacko release? Do we want to nominate a Puppy that is not even among the most popular or known Puppys to its own community members? Where is the download link for this one, I may want to have a look at it?

I say offer Vanilla Dpup

It seems to be offering improvements.
See this topic:
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=5044

I do wish it could provide more already installed software.
That has always been a very good feature of Puppy Linux.
Such a small OS, but with about everything you need already installed.

Maybe, offer it as it now is.

An additional adrv.sfs file with all the additional software programs.
Could be downloaded and added to be loaded with all the other sfs drv files.

That is basically what this topic is about:
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=7215
But it is what I feel, is absolutely what needs to be in it, from the start.

S15 doesnt exist
hasnt been built yet
someone will have to do it

assuming someone wishes to take on the task
how long can it be expected to take

wanderer

dimkr says vanilla Dpup is not an official puppy
it is also on the waiting list at distrowatch

someone would have to build a mainstream woof-ce version
and call it chocolate Dpup

wanderer