DistroWatch needs a newer Puppy version listed for Puppy Linux!!!!!

[fredx181]

Regarding Distrowatch, my experience with them is always immediate response.
I didn't even have to tell them when EasyOS 6.0 was released; somehow they just picked up on it and announced it.

Perhaps because your name is BarryK ?

[BarryK]

Regarding Distrowatch, my experience with them is always immediate response.
I didn't even have to tell them when EasyOS 6.0 was released; somehow they just picked up on it and announced it.

Perhaps because your name is BarryK ?

If that's the case, I can help out.

I just looked at Distrowatch, the last pup announced on 2022-12-10, so you are trying to get them to announce the latest?

I haven't read all of this thread, so I don't know what the holdup is, but if I do carry some weight with Jesse and Ladislav at Distrowatch, then maybe I can get things moving.

@wanderer
Send me a pm, what it is that you want them to announce, keeping in mind that you need to provide all the info I listed, and I will review it then contact Distrowatch.

[wanderer]

hi barry k and everyone

i am posting this on this thread instead of sending a pm
because i want everyone to read it

i think what happened was
we sent in the information piecemeal
which entailed multiple emails
which as barry k said probably annoyed them
so they did some odd stuff probably to show they were annoyed

i think it is unwise to contact them for a while

the date of the submission is correct
the screenshot is correct
the link to the forum is correct
and the link to the homepage is correct

other things are in error or not updated
but we can live with that for a while

i think what we should do is
as barry k suggested

get absolutely everything together to submit to them before we contact them again

so until that is done i do not intend to do anything

and i dont think we should contact them until we have our next submission

we will then have new info for them to post
so they will not be messing with the same stuff
we have already sent them multiple emails about
that annoyed them in the first place

this is a good lesson for the future
next time we will do it right

wanderer

[dogcat]

hi barry k and everyone

i am posting this on this thread instead of sending a pm
because i want everyone to read it

i think what happened was
we sent in the information piecemeal
which entailed multiple emails
which as barry k said probably annoyed them
so they did some odd stuff probably to show they were annoyed

i think it is unwise to contact them for a while

the date of the submission is correct
the screenshot is correct
the link to the forum is correct
and the link to the homepage is correct

other things are in error or not updated
but we can live with that for a while

i think what we should do is
as barry k suggested

get absolutely everything together to submit to them before we contact them again

so until that is done i do not intend to do anything

and i dont think we should contact them until we have our next submission

we will then have new info for them to post
so they will not be messing with the same stuff
we have already sent them multiple emails about
that annoyed them in the first place

this is a good lesson for the future
next time we will do it right

wanderer

Hang in there wanderer! It has been proven that if you didn't step up then nobody would (at least nobody had yet, both times). Many people want to pitch in to help once the plan is set though, and that is a good thing.

As far as getting a recent Puppy listed on distrowatch you can consider it mission completed.
Thanks for keeping Puppy current on distrowatch.

[wiak]

It doesn't actually matter to me personally at all at this particular time, and I've said so, but I do wonder what all the fuss is about Puppy Linux getting all forum member attention to create a 'presence on Distrowatch', but the same isn't being done for any other distro featured in the forum... Okay, so I get it that FatDog is produced by a selected team, and EasyOS by BarryK, and DebianDogs primarily by fredx181.

So I've seen the view written that the distro "author" should create that presence if they so want to, which I thought sounded fine... at first glance. But thinking about it further: 'who' is the author of Kennel Linux distros???! Okay, so I admit what is known: I'm the author of the FirstRib build system that starts the whole KL build off (at least all KLs currently) by creating a (very very minimum) core version of what will become the KL distro, and I provide the key general purpose FR init component that gives current KL distros all the underlying overlayfs tricks that user-utilities (such as KL variant of save2flash) can take advantage of.

However, whilst I started many of these off via many early exemplars for Void Linux first releases and the likes of old WDL_Arch64 and some others, I really cannot claim 'ownership' of all of the current KL distros. It is the plug file (like a template) that the firstrib build system provides for creating most of the KL distro that determines most of the final result aside from the in-common frugal install features brought by the FR initrd component. It is @rockedge that primarily builds and maintains KLV-AIredale64, and it is @Sofiya that builds and maintains several Arch Linux and also Void Linux KL variants (including KLs based on Openbox, Hyperland, Spectr and others...). i.e. whilst I provide a build system and a special initrd as part of that (and a few less often developed KL distros of my own), the overall Kennel Linux section is community distro build oriented, so I don't see that I am likely any time soon to publish (don't have time anyway), for example KLA_Hyperland or KLV-Airedale onto Distrowatch.

But why are we being asked to only care about Puppy Linux when these forum-community-produced KL efforts do not have any Distrowatch presence at all?!!!??? Suit yourselves, but makes no sense to me nowadays in the overall scheme of things here. Or am I simply being the Devil's advocate in the mind of some dogs and cats?

Yes, as I said above, I get it that FatDog is produced by a selected team, and EasyOS by BarryK, but KL is community-oriented (isn't it?) like Puppy is (I've heard woof-CE is supposed to be anyway), even though current KL examples use my creation "the FirstRib build system" to organise the build. Over to wanderer...

[williwaw]

But why are we being asked to only care about Puppy Linux when these forum-community-produced KL efforts do not have any Distrowatch presence at all?!!!???

by having distrowatch link to puppylinux.com as the homepage instead of directly to https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/, there is an easy way to call the attention of distrowatch users to various other projects.
dirstrowatch does this for suse and fedora etc.....

puppylinux.com can be anything the community chooses at any time without having to frequently submit small edits to the distrowatch site maintainers

[rockedge]

It is @rockedge that primarily builds and maintains KLV-Airedale......

and because I was interested in working with a tiling window manager and it was easy to take KLV-Airedale's core PLUG and replace XFCE4 with Spectrwm and it developed into KLV-Spectr-rc2 and my favorite KLV-Spectr-RT. I used @Sofiya's polish plus bar design and @geo_c's key bindings. I found that KLV using the Spectrwm window manager and desktop environment and a huge full real time kernel turned out to be the fastest lightest operating system I've encountered. Excellent for audio, video production and software synthesizers and digital equipment. Super low latency with the RT kernels.

Runs LinuxCNC and ZoneMinder very well.

Works well with the same kernels as KLV-Airedale including Void Linux kernels.

Spectrwm was chosen at first based on that the configuration is a text file with relatively easy syntax with intuitive parameters.

[dimkr]

puppylinux.com can be anything the community chooses at any time

As long as changes are submitted to https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/p ... .github.io by somebody with permissions

[peebee]

As long as changes are submitted to https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/p ... .github.io

Pull requests welcomed:
https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/faq.html
from
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/p ... ter/faq.md

About other Puppy Linux-like distributions
Q: Is DebianDog considered as Puppy Linux?
A: No. The maintainer itself has said so. Further more it is not built from Woof-CE. But it seeks to emulate most if not all of Puppy Linux features and behaviours; that if you are familiar with Puppy you would be right at home about it.

Q: If DebianDog is not Puppy, why do you support them, or even mention them here?
A: DebianDog is considerd as a member of Puppy Linux family of operating systems.

Q: Is Quirky Linux considered as Puppy Linux? It is also made by Barry.
A: No, Barry himself has stated multiple times that Quirky is not Puppy. Just like DebianDog, Quirky is a member of Puppy Linux family.

Q: Is Fatdog64 considered as Puppy Linux?
A: No. It was originally forked from Puppy Linux 4.0, but it has since took a different path (of doing the same thing). Like DebianDog and Quirky, however, it is considered as part of Puppy Linux family.

[wanderer]

yes

they are all members of the puppy linux family

i like that

wanderer