Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

hi all

i am strongly opposed to changing anything

except how we all work together

if puppy is a concept
and not a particular piece of code

which by the way it never was a particular piece of code
because it has constantly changed
from the time barry k started it
until now

then whatever is on the forum
can be
a woof-ce puppy
a woof puppy
or a puppylike distro
or a puppy inspired distro
etc

i think everything on the forum has been inspired by the concepts of puppy
or we wouldn't be here
we would be on some other forum
or have a forum of our own

lets leave everything unchanged
because puppy is a recognized brand
and a great draw
also it would be confusing to newbees
until they begin to understand that puppy is a concept
not a particular distro implementation

instead we should try to incorporate
all
of the useful ideas on the forum
to make better distros

for example
can we use fredx181s debiandog script
or wiaks firstrib system
to make a more user friendly build system for the puppy community

the purists have nothing to worry about
because our distrowatch candidates
are woof-ce puppies
and probably will be for the foreseeable future

wanderer

@wanderer

Hi and thanks.

I was thinking about creation of a new LazY Puppy for some time
But I have way too much trouble in real life to get the time and the mind free for that.

I'm still using my own Music Studio Puppy (ArtStudio64) which was created from the
Ubuntu Bionic 18.04 packages. I used MakePup to create this one and added all my developments.

hi RSH

great to have you back

take care of yourself first
you were doing way too much work the last time

you should tell everyone about makepup
maybe we all can get some ideas

wanderer

RSH wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:24 pm

I used MakePup to create this one and added all my developments.

Very interested in MakePup.Is it production ready? Or something you can share at this time? Really like the music studio's you've built over time and some of your utilities are still talked about these days.

Glad life smoothed out a bit for you.

from the other thread

rockedge wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:34 pm

@mikeslr Good tips...thanks for those.....I made some adjustments that you recommended.

Please take a look and see what you think

Bookworm web portal

is it possible to have www.puppylinux.com not be a redirect but serve as a landing page for all things here at the forum? something designed like what the above is now? Of course, the top shelf primary feature should be the puppy submitted to DW, with a link to https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io at woof-ce

What she has made are absolutely unique, are fully equipped and both using upstream package management and have no substitutes.
All of what the rest of us are doing is based on ancient stuff. No matter what some say, she leads the pack.

and in addition, www.puppylinux.com could also sub-feature dogs, klvs and other notable projects as they are released?

Of course I was using the most common used terminology of Linux being Linux plus the additional software used to create the operating system. i.e. GNU/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux ... ontroversy
Not many people talk about GNU/Linux, we just use the term "Linux" and that there are many Linux operating systems.

I don't think it is anything but unhelpful to use that word "accuse" about what I say. Why such aggression? It should be clear that I am fine with anyone building any Linux distro using any methodology they want; there is no Puppy Linux team leader any more and why bother with all the talk about what is "official"?

Also, it was jamesbond who insisted on what are now very old references. I couldn't be bothered with that waste of time, but since I knew a couple of them off the top of my head I posted them since I was otherwise being told that my comments were untrue. I'm simply not a liar. But do I nowadays want the forum changed in any way? Not at all and I said that too. Really a bit ridiculous to ask someone to post "references" and then use these old references to suggest I was nowadays asking for anything - I need and ask for nothing, but please don't misquote me or manipulate the reason posts were made - these references are OLD.

But thanks for all the 'corrections' to my opinions (the old and whatever opinions are current). All posts made by everyone, aside from grass is green type established facts (and in use of language generally, not much is ever black and white "true"), are "opinions", and who is claiming otherwise unless they imagine they are a god?

@wanderer
@rockedge
It's log ago when I used MakePup to build my Puppy.
I modified it a little before starting the work.

I recall a post or topic long ago wherein the original creator of MakePup mentioned that it is not continued and also not updated for the use of the updated WoofCE to build Puppies beyond Bionic Puppy.

I would need to try the version I have locally existing, but as I wrote: don't have the mind free because of trouble in real life. It's also very time consuming by having appointments with the lawyer, put requests into competent courts and to defend against false accusations. It's really a horror story.

But never mind. I did nothing wrong, all allegations are untrue and there's two witnesses who can largely confirm my description of the facts. It's just a matter of time because (as we in Germany say): die Mühlen der Justiz mahlen langsam (the wheels of justice grind slowly.).

jamesbond wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 6:10 pm

rockedge wrote:

What makes a "Kennel Linux" a "Kennel Linux"?

Uses a FirstRib initrd.

Thank you for the succint, yet clear, answer.

There you go guys, as the one who coined the name "Kennel Linux", @rockedge has provided a definitive definition that anything that uses FirstRib initrd can be called as "Kennel Linux". It's not the build system. It's not the creator of the distro. It's initrd that matters: if it is FirstRib then it is Kennel.

Don't we all hope that we have similar clarity when it comes to the question of "What makes Puppy Linux a Puppy Linux"?

I wish you would stop playing silly word games, jamesbond, since you are distorting what really happened via these games.

The name of a distro "Kennel Linux" was a suggestion by myself to rockedge in a PM message.

Since was being asked, I reiterated that several times and even have a thread explaining it: viewtopic.php?p=92101#p92101
Some of you no doubt know that perfectly well.
viewtopic.php?p=91984#p91984

I made it very clear that I wanted the term to simply mean a distro created using parts from any or all distros and associated projects undertaken on this "the Kennels" forum as a whole.

I also stated at that time and several times since that whilst current Kennel Linux distros adopted FirstRib initrd as their init, that is NOT a requirement of any Kennel Linux distro any person wants to put together. In wanting that name "Kennel Linux" for a distro the only significance is that it would be a Kennels distro that would use any forum component such that it encouraged non-partisan collaboration. Unfortunately, the partisan crap goes on, but yes, this is just all a hobby from my purposes. Let the word manipulations continue if it keeps some happy - doesn't really matter - some may have memories, but memories fade away and truth becomes what is made of it.

hi wiak

so explain to me again
why we cant use firstrib
to make a usr friendly build system
for the puppy linux community ?

wanderer

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:57 am

The name of a distro "Kennel Linux" was a suggestion by myself to rockedge in a PM message.

Since was being asked, I reiterated that several times and even have a thread explaining it: viewtopic.php?p=92101#p92101
Some of you no doubt know that perfectly well.
viewtopic.php?p=91984#p91984

I made it very clear that I wanted the term to simply mean a distro created using parts from any or all distros and associated projects undertaken on this "the Kennels" forum as a whole.

I also stated at that time and several times since that whilst current Kennel Linux distros adopted FirstRib initrd as their init, that is NOT a requirement of any Kennel Linux distro any person wants to put together. In wanting that name "Kennel Linux" for a distro the only significance is that it would be a Kennels distro that would use any forum component such that it encouraged non-partisan collaboration. Unfortunately, the partisan crap goes on, but yes, this is just all a hobby from my purposes. Let the word manipulations continue if it keeps some happy - doesn't really matter - some may have memories, but memories fade away and truth becomes what is made of it.

Looking at my quote I'll say I stand by it. I see it this way => There is FirstRib...then there was WeeDog and now there is Kennel Linux....which up to this point all include using the FirstRib initrd.

The next project also using ideas and components from the forum should carry a new banner. Kennel Linux was a great suggestion for a name from @wiak and I feel my definition of Kennel Linux makes sense. And I don't mind using the name as it is at all. Narrows down what "it" is.

wanderer wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 1:18 am

hi wiak

so explain to me again
why we cant use firstrib
to make a usr friendly build system
for the puppy linux community ?

wanderer

It is already used for that wanderer. The current puppy linux community distros termed "KL" are the result of that. What I don't myself think is a good idea is to take any KL distro and rename it as official Puppy Linux.

If you mean is it possible to take the FR build system and use it to assemble Puppy Linux core components to produce a working Puppy Linux distro? Yes, I'd say it could be used to do that, and even more so if wanting Debian debootstrap DebianDog-style Puppy Linux distro; in fact FR build system has debootstrap Debian base root filesystem build capability 'built in' to it and long has had that - I just haven't pursued building debootstrap Debian-based distros since DebianDog already does that fine, albeit DD used a modified initrd from Porteus Linux whereas KL uses FR initrd, which is pretty much upstream root filesystem generic (i.e. can use most any root filesystem from anywhere). Note that I'm answering "could" but not "should"; I have no interest in voting about that - anything that works better is fine by me.

Regarding the forum name... Like everyone I also have an opinion, and nothing more than that.

I feel that as long as Puppy Linux name pulls in new members to the forum then that's fine since an active forum is what most interests me in terms of what happens in the future.

However, if Puppy Linux forum became as dead as the forums of the likes of other once well known little distros such as Damn Small Linux, Slitaz, and even tinycore linux, then better to create a new "brand", new domain, new forum name that better advertises its wide-ranging richness, in an attempt to make the forum lively again. That would require someone to build a parallel forum with new domain name, but at the moment I don't see any point to that - it only has point when current forum fails to attract new members, or too few, since at the moment no one here would go to any new forum probably anyway since we are apparently generally fine with what we have. Note please that I am talking about this forum not the specific Puppy Linux distro it traditionally only concerned.

Crosses my mind: PuttyLinux.com

hi all

i think the most important project for the forum and the community

is to make a user friendly build system for our distro

wiak has stated that it is possible to do that with firstrib

i quote

"If you mean is it possible to take the FR build system and use it to assemble Puppy Linux core components to produce a working Puppy Linux distro?
Yes, I'd say it could be used to do that, and even more so if wanting Debian debootstrap DebianDog-style Puppy Linux distro"

i am requesting that someone do it

or at least explain to me how i can do it

i am certainly willing to give it a try

wanderer

wanderer wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 2:04 am

hi all

i think the most important project for the forum and the community

is to make a user friendly build system for our distro

wiak has stated that it is possible to do that with firstrib

i am requesting that someone do it

or at least explain to me how i can do it

i am certainly willing to give it a try

wanderer

I think what @rockedge said about @Sofiya and the build scripts is very accurate.

I myself have built two Kennel Linux systems from the build scripts, and customizing the package list was a simple matter of adding packages and files to a second script file called a "plug file"

So basically you download the build script and follow the simple instructions included in the script, and let it download the stock plug file while it's building. To modify the plug, you download the plug file ahead of time, add your packages and place it in the build directory and the build script will use that one instead of downloading the standard one. It's really that simple.

In fact here are the instructions on how to build KLV-Hyprland:

1) Create a folder `KLV-HyprlandCE` typing in the terminal `mkdir -p KLV-HyprlandCE`

2) Open a terminal in the created folder `KLV-HyprlandCE` or go to the folder by typing in the terminal

   - `cd KLV-HyprlandCE`

3) Place the build script  `KLbuild_Void_hyprland_0.41_swayBASE.sh` in the created folder.
   
4) Make it executable.`chmod +x KLbuild_Void_hyprland_0.41_swayBASE.sh`

5) Enter in terminal `./KLbuild_Void_hyprland_0.41_swayBASE.sh`

6) Wait for the build to finish.

7) After the build is complete to package `07firstrib_rootfs` into `07KLV-HyprlandCE-x.x.sfs` where x.x is your build number.

8) Type in terminal.

```
mksquashfs 07firstrib_rootfs 07KLV-HyprlandCE-x.x.sfs -noappend -comp xz -b 512k
```
  - where x.x is your build number.

9) Delete the `07firstrib_rootfs` folder.

hi geo_c

thanks for your help

because i think this is by far the most important project for the community
i am going to keep my initial questions on this thread
at a later date this project can be moved to its own thread for development

i have used and read the script for debiandog
and it ran successfully and was clear to me from the very beginning
but debiandog only builds a debian system
which is a problem for the puppy purists

i have run and read the firstrib script
but it did not produce an iso for me to use
and when i downloaded the KVL - airedale iso and burned it to usb
it kernal panicked

so i am at an impasse

so the first step for me is to get something to actually run

reading your instructions
i do not see an iso being made
just a filesystem sfs file

also i would like to start with the how-tos
Build KLV xorg-minimal JWM mini script

any ideas

wanderer

wanderer wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 2:36 am

hi geo_c

thanks for your help

because i think this is by far the most important project for the community
i am going to keep my initial questions on this thread
at a later date this project can be moved to its own thread for development

i have used and read the script for debiandog
and it ran successfully and was clear to me from the very beginning
but debiandog only builds a debian system
which is a problem for the puppy purists

i have run and read the firstrib script
but it did not produce an iso for me to use
and when i downloaded the KVL - airedale iso and burned it to usb
it kernal panicked

so i am at an impasse

so the first step for me is to get something to actually run

reading your instructions
i do not see an iso being made
just a filesystem sfs file

also i would like to start with the how-tos
Build KLV xorg-minimal JWM mini script

any ideas

wanderer

Do you only boot iso's? I'm a bare metal guy. I only booted iso's with SG2D. Didn't like it a whole lot. If you're trying to boot iso's that the team produces, @Clarity knows all about that. He's tested every one and they all boot, even in VM most of the time. The scripts I've used download the kernel package consisting of the init, vmlinuz, 00modules, 01firmware, and w_init, and you could always grab the kernel included in the corresponding pre-built iso, and all the different kernel packs @rockedge builds for KLV are swappable. The init, vmlinuz, 00modules, 01firmware, and w_init need to be from the same package. But like I say, the scripts I've used all download the kernel, modules, firmware and init. Everything needed to boot.

Your kernel panic could have been a simple boot stanza mispelling.

So no, the script does not build an iso, that's simply a package for an operating system. The script builds an operating system, a puppy like set of files, that when placed in a directory can have a script called wd_grubconfig run from the install location that will give you working boot stanzas. A simple frugal install in every sense of the word.

So my suggestion is to first build using the script, all the parts will be there in a directory, and then generate your boot stanzas and boot it on bare metal. The iso is final packaging.

Also @wiak and @rockedge have made a couple of different busy box, no x build scripts. I haven't used those, but I'm sure there a couple still around.

There's even a JWM KL, if you'd like to go that direction.

I'm a humble jazz musician, so if I can build an OS from a Kennel Linux script, anyone can.

There's even a JWM KL, if you'd like to go that direction.

Yes there is, we put together earlier several variants of WeeDog32 and WeeDog64, both Void Linux based using a JWM - Rox desktop. These WeeDog's were the precursor to KLV-Boxer and then to add desktop with more features went to XFCE4 and KLV-Airedale was born.

Most development of KLV-Boxer has been in hibernation and the PLUG recipe file(s) not polished. With KLV-Boxer I intended on taking JWMDesk and adapting it to these systems for a good JWM configuration utility system from Puppy Linux. KLV-Boxer still uses ALSA for audio but should be easy enough to go to pulseaudio and or pipewire.

I can pull out the PLUG recipes collected from @wiak and myself that build extreme minimal Void Linux based KLV's with no X server.

These PLUG's are a good place to begin to learn how to customize to one's desires. They can make 80-90 M is size operating systems that don't do much in this minimal, minimal state, though the PLUG's are a good base to start to learn from.

hi rockedge and geo_c

thanks for all your help

so here is the project
i intend to create a build system using firstrib
that anyone can use
to build a distro consisting of puppy parts

that is to create a user friendly puppy build system

which we have been talking about for a long time

im sure it will take time
but ive got time

any help is appreciated

im going to keep it on this thread for now
to keep it in the public eye

but this thread is not just for this project
its for anything related to puppy world

the smaller the start the better
once i have a build system for an iso that will boot
i can begin to learn it and add to it

the script builds the components
the next step are the commands to pack them into an iso
i will look at how i built the isos with corepup
but if anyone just wants to hand me the commands it would save time

wanderer

wiak wrote:

If you mean is it possible to take the FR build system and use it to assemble Puppy Linux core components to produce a working Puppy Linux distro? Yes, I'd say it could be used to do that ...

If someone does that, will it have the puppy initrd system or the firstrib initrd system ?
If it's firstrib, what then ? Tell everyone that the specific puppy boot parameters have changed ?, i.e. that pfix= pmedia= psave= won't work anymore.

hi fredx181

yes it will have a different initrd
and in fact no other puppy parts to start
and at first it will be very different from what we think of as puppy

but over time what is needed can be added
this is just to get the ball rolling
otherwise we will be just talking forever

i once completely stripped the old init script in puppy
so i could make my rampup
which was just a puppy ramdrive
with /user symlinked to it

i actually dont know how firstrib is set up
but i assume the init script is in the initrd
and i dont know how much the puppy init script has change since i messed with it
but i assume that is where all that stuff still is
so as barry k used to say
the init script is the heart of puppy

the most important part to start
is that it is an easy system to use
and build on

wanderer

wanderer wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 9:57 am

yes it will have a different initrd

What problem with FR are you trying to solve? We already have multiple build systems that work well, each in its own domain and use cases. IMO writing more build systems only for the sake of writing more build systems won't make Puppy better, but improvements to existing ones (like speeding up the boot process, making save2flash faster and more reliable, etc') will.

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:57 am

I wish you would stop playing silly word games, jamesbond, since you are distorting what really happened via these games.

I do not play games.

I wrote what I wrote in your response that that isn't much "uniqueness" amongst the distros here, so anyone who claims "uniqueness" is rubbish.

I want to refute this statement. If nothing is unique, names are not needed; but we do have names for these distros. So why do we have names, at all? What would be the criteria before something can be called under that name? Nobody can answer (or rather, agree) on what makes Puppy Linux a Puppy Linux, so I asked a simpler and easier question: what makes "Kennel Linux" a "Kennel Linux".

The name of a distro "Kennel Linux" was a suggestion by myself to rockedge in a PM message.

@rockedge answered my question, and as far as I remember, he was the one who coined the term. If in fact you are the one who coined the "Kennel Linux" term and not @rockedge, then my apologies. It's an honest mistake and I never intended to take credit from you.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to note that both you and @rockedge have a different idea of what constitutes "Kennel Linux". I think you'd better sort this out with @rockedge.

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:32 am

I don't think it is anything but unhelpful to use that word "accuse" about what I say. Why such aggression?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never accused you of anything. Where exactly was I agressive to you?

why bother with all the talk about what is "official"?

I have already explained what "official" means, and why "official" is needed, and even offer another word with similar meaning, "representative". You may have missed it, so here it is again:

jamesbond wrote:

Explanation: The world "official" in Puppy Linux means a few particular Puppy Linux distro families, which have been selected/agreed on as being "representative" of what Puppy Linux is. One obvious example is the very distro we put on distrowatch. Whatever is being promoted in distrowatch is the "official" Puppy Linux; as when new users search, look, and want to test Puppy Linux, that linked distrowatch distro will be then one that they try first. If the experience is bad, they won't say "BookwormPup64 is bad", they will say "Puppy Linux is bad"; hence "BookwormPup64" is representing Puppy Linux distro family as a whole - hence, it is "official".

You may not like the word "official", but every time we have a discussion of what distro to put on distrowatch to represent Puppy Linux, we are in fact choosing an "official" Puppy. You can use "representative" if you don't want to use the word "official" - but the meaning behind is the same.

Which again, as no bearing whatsoever with other non-Puppy distros featured in this forum, as when we talk about "official" or "representative", it only concerns Puppy Linux distro families, not the other non-Puppy distros and doesn't reduce their worth in anyway.

As for this one:

Also, it was jamesbond who insisted on what are now very old references.

I did not ask for old references. I was asking for evidence. It was your own choice to post those old references.

You made the claim that some people here are "ganging up together" against non-Puppy distros, that non-Puppy distros are invasions in this forum, that non-Puppy distros are counterfeit, and non-Puppy distros are free-loading on top of Puppy's popularity.

I didn't see any of that here in the new forum (apart from a few outliers), hence me asking for evidence. From where I stand, I see this forum as very welcoming to all of the distros here.

As far as I'm aware, when the forum was set up, it was clear from day one that this would not be a Puppy Linux-only forum. This would be a forum for all Puppy-like distros, or Puppy-inspired distros. You helped @rockedge to set up the forum this way, to correct the perceived problems of Puppy-centricness old forum. When people started to come here, they had to accept the reality that this new forum had a bigger and fuller scope that the old forum; and most people quickly adapted to that reality.

Hence, I just wanted to point out that all of these claims that you made, have already been addressed in the new forum, and it benefits no one to repeat old grievances that have already been corrected.

Instead, let's move forward and talk about what we can do about Puppy (if you really want it to survive).

Really a bit ridiculous to ask someone to post "references" and then use these old references to suggest I was nowadays asking for anything - I need and ask for nothing, but please don't misquote me or manipulate the reason posts were made - these references are OLD.

If you did not want anything changed, then why did you keep bring up old grievances which has already been addressed?

But thanks for all the 'corrections' to my opinions (the old and whatever opinions are current). All posts made by everyone, aside from grass is green type established facts (and in use of language generally, not much is ever black and white "true"), are "opinions", and who is claiming otherwise unless they imagine they are a god?

The only correction I made was for your references to Linux as "operating system", because it is not. Your link to GNU/Linux controversy has no relevance, that controversy is about the "name" of the operating system which uses Linux as a kernel. There is no dispute or disagreement that that "Linux" is in fact only a kernel, and not an operating system.

As for the others, you're right that they're just opinions; and that's exactly what I pointing out: they're just your opinions. I agree with some of your opinions, neutral about the others, and disagree with the rest. And as you air your opinions, I'd like to air mine too: including pointing out that not everybody shares all of your opinions. I hope that is not forbidden yet.

fredx181 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:15 am

wiak wrote:

If you mean is it possible to take the FR build system and use it to assemble Puppy Linux core components to produce a working Puppy Linux distro? Yes, I'd say it could be used to do that ...

If someone does that, will it have the puppy initrd system or the firstrib initrd system ?
If it's firstrib, what then ? Tell everyone that the specific puppy boot parameters have changed ?, i.e. that pfix= pmedia= psave= won't work anymore.

Of course not. It must use a Puppy initrd - and that was what I envisaged. FirstRib is firstrib and fine for my own distro purposes (weedog as it was, but whatever I later choose to call it) and various KL builds, but Puppy has Pmodes and that needs a suitable initrd for that - mind you, I'm not saying existing Puppy initrd necessarily. However, I just said it was possible; not for a second do I suggest an out-of-the-box situation and I'm certainly not volunteering to pursue that alternative build mechanism.

Anyway, I haven't tried to use/modify existing FirstRib build scripts to build a Puppy. If I had a lot of time free I'd try as a fun experiment, but frankly my life has been turned upside down such that I struggle to even get back to firstribit (weedogit), which is what I myself currently want to do. I can no longer remember anything about woof-CE composition though I did partially study it once (re: when I was writing makepup utility), but I do wonder why it is such a complex multi-script build system; Puppy itself is a slimmed down somewhat simple distro so doesn't make sense to me that its build system is so convoluted/complex. I found its initrd similarly huge (several times bigger than FR initrd in code lines, but for what extra facilities?), but as long as it works it doesn't really matter. I think main frustration here is worry that no-one is stepping up to the plate consistently in terms of future versions of Puppy Linux (and concern about woof-CE seems to be at the heart of that situation?). After so many Ubuntu-based pups in the past, suddenly the situation arose that no version of jammypup arose to take any official release status... I have no idea the whys or wherefores of that.

But anyway, quite frankly I disagree almost entirely with wanderer on this matter. Fine to promote any and every distro, but Puppy is Puppy and it is not DebianDog nor Kennel Linux/FirstRib or whatever. Woof-CE is the current build system for Puppy - it is up to Puppy devs if they want to modify, improve or replace that, but hopefully the end result will remain some form of the Puppy Linux we know.

Having said that, if wanderer wants to develop his own version of Puppy and uses FirstRib build system somehow to achieve that then that is entirely up to him. Free world in that sense. No one stops anyone taking on the role of a Puppy dev.

hi dimkr wiak and fredx181 and everyone

thanks for your help and input

what i am trying to achieve
is to have a usr friendly build system to make a puppy
so that people who cannot or do not want to use woof-ce can make puppies

and i have been thinking

the key to puppy is the initrd and the init script
everything else is just added on as sfs files

im not going to use a different system
im just going to isolate the components

i will not be using the firstrib initrd
i will be using the puppy initrd

so it will be all puppy from the very beginning

this will also address your issue
that we really need to focus on improving puppy
rather than building a new system

the only thing needed is to build a simple assembly process

so the next question is
what method is now being used to compress/uncompress the puppy initrd ?

wanderer

The reason why nobody can define what Puppy Linux, is because Puppy Linux is an elephant and everybody is trying to define it from what they touch.

1. From the end-user point of view, Puppy Linux is a family of distros that shares the same features (e.g PUPMODE 13, SFS loading, etc) and can be configured in a certain way (e.g. pfix=, pmedia=, etc).

2. From the developer's point of view, Puppy Linux is a family of distros that shares the same code base. This code base is the one that implements the features that the end-users see in (1).

---

3. End-users only care about the visible and usable part of operating system. They don't care about the inner workings, the scripts, the build system, etc. From their point of view, even if everything underneath is replaced with a completely different code base, as long as a distro works exactly the same way (that they're familiar with), then it is Puppy.

4. Developers on the other hands mostly cares only about the code. As long as the codebase used in a distro is the same (or traces to the same ancestry), then the distro is considered as a Puppy, even if the behaviour keeps evolving.

---

Hence, when we talk about the future of Puppy, we have to be careful about what we want or need to preserve. Do you want to preserve the functionality? Or do you want to preserve the codebase?

It's best to preserve both, obviously, but as we have seen in this thread and many others before it: not everyone is fond of Woof-CE (=the codebase). But in my opinion, suggesting a replacement that behaves completely different (or have completely different features) from the previously known Puppy would be a bad idea as well.

Therefore, in my opinion, to move Puppy forward, there are two different paths that can be taken.

1. Take a distro, and tweak and modify it so that it behaves like Puppy. Then we call it as the "next-gen" Puppy.

2. Take the codebase, and fix all the bugs to make Puppy up-to-date. And then we call it as the "next-gen" Puppy.

@dimkr obviously has taken (2), although being the low-profile person he is, he doesn't want to call his "next-gen" codebase as Puppy.
@wanderer is advocating for (1), but the problem is that there are no developers who are willing to do it.

---

Note that I don't specifically talk about build-system.
Build-system is important, but more important that the build-system is the distro itself.
The first Puppy was hand-crafted by Barry.
There was no build system, and it wasn't necessary either.

It became necessary when the next updates needed to be released.
To update a distro, one needed to start off with a new base, and then re-apply all the modifications.
Doing it again and again was tedious, and error-prone.
A build system was done so that this tedious and error-prone job is done automatically.
In other words, making the distro reproducible: starting with same ingredients, and putting in the same recipe, will produce identical distro.

But of course, what's important is the final product: the distro. Not the build system. The build system is a tool we use to help to produce. When we choose a build system, we need to ensure that our build system is capable of producing the distro that we want.

jamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 am

I wrote what I wrote in your response that that isn't much "uniqueness" amongst the distros here, so anyone who claims "uniqueness" is rubbish.

I want to refute this statement. If nothing is unique, names are not needed; but we do have names for these distros. So why do we have names, at all? What would be the criteria before something can be called under that name? Nobody can answer (or rather, agree) on what makes Puppy Linux a Puppy Linux, so I asked a simpler and easier question: what makes "Kennel Linux" a "Kennel Linux".

You seem to be ignoring part of my explanation. My view as expressed was that Linux distros are only unique in the sense that different models of car are unique; they all have four wheels, and until recently most all had an internal combustion engine and various lamps and gadgets, but all cars that took a person from A to B. Similar uniqueness with Linux distros was what I said to clarify my not particularly "unique" viewpoint. After all, which one of us here invented or wrote the code for overlayfs (or aufs for that matter) which is the technology we are now using to provide layered union-type filesystems. There is nothing particularly new or unique about such techniques (Sun Microsystem had something pretty similar in operation decades ago), but we use slightly different ways of achieving similar ends and use different variable names (Pmodes in the case of Puppy, change modes in the case of Porteus boot, w_changes modes in the case of FirstRib - overall not very unique though).

The name of a distro "Kennel Linux" was a suggestion by myself to rockedge in a PM message.

jamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 am

@rockedge answered my question, and as far as I remember, he was the one who coined the term. If in fact you are the one who coined the "Kennel Linux" term and not @rockedge, then my apologies. It's an honest mistake and I never intended to take credit from you.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to note that both you and @rockedge have a different idea of what constitutes "Kennel Linux". I think you'd better sort this out with @rockedge.

I definitely suggested the name Kennel Linux for a new distro using parts from any forum projects. That was what I wanted and intended to happen, but specifed at the time (in PM to rockedge) that it didn't ultimately have to use FR initrd - that was just a convenient/easy to use start.

But... I never ever intended to control in any way what would constitute any "Kennel Linux" anyone would build, so there is nothing at all I need to clear up with rockedge. My explanation in KL section is in fact wide in perspective so if rockedge has a more specific narrower wish for his KL releases that is absolutely fine - totally up to the KL builder what they build and no need therefore for me to explain what any particular KL distro is or stands for - perhaps it is anarchy, which was maybe always a strong point of how this forum operated because of the late John Murga's hands off approach to the old forum.

jamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 am

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:32 am

I don't think it is anything but unhelpful to use that word "accuse" about what I say. Why such aggression?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never accused you of anything. Where exactly was I agressive to you?

I suggest you check your earlier post. I can't be bothered looking back at it, but I am pretty sure you used the word "accuse" - suggesting I was accusing people of something or other; really I had no idea what you were talking about since I was just stating my own opinions right or wrong as they may be.

jamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 am

As for this one:

Also, it was jamesbond who insisted on what are now very old references.

I did not ask for old references. I was asking for evidence. It was your own choice to post those old references.

You made the claim that some people here are "ganging up together" against non-Puppy distros, that non-Puppy distros are invasions in this forum, that non-Puppy distros are counterfeit, and non-Puppy distros are free-loading on top of Puppy's popularity.

This is becoming increasing odd; one minute you are asking for references in evidence, which is old junk that personally I'd rather stayed buried (and especially since you are now claiming I am saying such stuff currently, which I am not - so stop your pot stirring nonsense please. You definitely said you wanted 'references' in evidence of things I had alluded to. I said I couldn't be bothered, but just to show there were 'references' and not me pretending such comments had occurred I made the slight quick effort to post a little example, but only because you had asked and not to re-stir a long dead pot.

As for what anyone here deems as official or not. That is irrelevant to me. It is all opensource - only trademarks/copyright/license is important in that world - we can all build our own versions of what we like and offer them to the world and even call them all "official" (from ourselves) if we so choose. Hence my suggesting the term is meaningless, but each to their own...

hi jamesbond

as i stated above
i feel i have found the solution

the key is to remove the components from woof-ce
and create a simple assembly process

1. then we still have the codebase
2. we have a simple assembly process so that everyone can use it
3. and we have the look and functionality of puppy

because nothing has changed except the assembly process

and i am working on that now

wanderer

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:33 am

I think main frustration here is worry that no-one is stepping up to the plate consistently in terms of future versions of Puppy Linux (and concern about woof-CE seems to be at the heart of that situation?).

There are still few Puppy developers remain here, but the main issue is that the efforts are not consolidated. As @dimkr has pointed repeatedly, Pup-A has fixes and add feature #A, Pup-B has fixes (different from fixes found in Pup-A) and has feature B; when Pup-A version 2.0 is released, there is no guarantee that it has the fixes found in Pup-B.

That's the importance of Woof-CE: it enables important fixes and common features to be shared among the puppies, while still enabling every pup developer the freedom to build their puppies uniquely.

If nobody maintains Woof-CE anymore, Puppy will continue to march on; as the current developers can continue to build, and customise Puppies based on the last available version of Woof-CE; but their distros will continue to diverge further and further as time passes, until none of them could be recognised as Puppy anymore.

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:00 pm

You seem to be ignoring part of my explanation.

I am not ignoring it. I'm just disagreeing with it, and stating my own opinion instead.

I suggest you check your earlier post.

I did and found no evidence.

This is becoming increasing odd; one minute you are asking for references in evidence, which is old junk that personally I'd rather stayed buried (and especially since you are now claiming I am saying such stuff currently, which I am not - so stop your pot stirring nonsense please.

I wasn't the one who said these in a few posts ago:

wiak wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:59 pm

... some have tended to gang together ...

... until relatively recently made it obvious they considered the other 'distros' featured in the forum as having some kind of invasion characteristic onto Puppy Linux turf

and made a big endless deal about proclaiming what is "official" Puppy Linux, which as a concept almost seems to suggest that the likes of DebianDog and Kennel Linux were free-loading on top of Puppy Linux as some kind of counterfeit(!)

And you are saying that I'm the one who stirs the pot?

As for what anyone here deems as official or not. That is irrelevant to me.

You either misunderstand my explanation, or choose to ignore it completely. But that's fine. My question is, if it's really irrelevant to you, why do you keep bring it from time to time?

jamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 am

As for this one:

Also, it was jamesbond who insisted on what are now very old references.

I did not ask for old references. I was asking for evidence. It was your own choice to post those old references.

Apparently it was not my choice; it was your request:

jamesbond wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 3:20 pm

wiak wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:59 pm

... some have tended to gang together ...

Who are these "some" people? Can you name them?
...
I saw this in the old murga-forum. I never saw anything like this in the new forum since it started in 2020. Can you provide a reference, a link to a post, maybe, that this still happens here? Even better if you can point out the member propagandising this idea.
...
I don't think anyone ever says that they are riding on Puppy Linux's popularity either. Can you provide the reference?

And looks like you did indeed accuse me of "making accusation" and it was you who requested the reference links bringing up "old grievances", not me... So maybe check what you say in future, eh???!:

jamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 am

wiak wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:32 am

I don't think it is anything but unhelpful to use that word "accuse" about what I say. Why such aggression?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never accused you of anything.
...
If you did not want anything changed, then why did you keep bring up old grievances which has already been addressed?

jamesbond wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:00 pm

All you need to do is ask @rockedge to re-structure the forum. He has been very attentive and very accommodating with changes. So instead of making accusation that Puppy Linux is unfairly exposed, just raise a request to him to make the change, I'm sure he doesn't mind.

Ahem...