Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Hi all

I wanted to know what the aims and objectives of this OS is?

A cursory glance showed me there are presently 9 pages of threads already in here already ........... far too many post to go through on a Saturday night

My understanding is that is a "Do Ocracy" (?)

So, is there a group of individuals that make decisions?

Who are these individuals?

Hi, @Jasper .

Here's the best definition of "do-ocracy" I've been able to find. It probably encompasses both me AND thee.....and perhaps 20 or so others within our community. Basically, if someone feels strongly enough about doing something, they will take the initiative and DO it!

https://medlabboulder.gitlab.io/democra ... do-ocracy/

Individuals that enjoy contributing will, over time, garner the respect of others within the community. The only downside is that others may come to expect that you'll continue to do what you do in perpetuity....

Mike.

So, is there a group of individuals that make decisions?

Depends on what decisions.......

There are certain members who have the administration rights to merge pushed code commits to the woof-CE GitHub repo.

Many of the Puppy Linux distro's are customized, modified and assembled from woof-CE generated versions, and are worked on by small groups or a single person.

Same goes for DebianDog and Kennel Linux. A small group of enthusiastic developers doing big things.

The original developer of BionicPup64-8.0 and Fossapup64-9.5 @666philb hasn't been around the forum for some time now.

The forum is manned by TEAM

I wanted to know what the aims and objectives of this OS is?

A small Linux OS that can be completely loaded into RAM.
Work on low spec computers.
Already have in it, all the programs you will most likely want to have.
Be worked on, by anyone that wants to do anything, that needs to be done or they feel they, want to do.
Not so much now, but there are a lot of core programs, that people coded to do specific things. (a lot of them are still part of Puppy Linux)
That should still be an objective as it has been.
Why have this big huge program to do something, when we could code a simple small program, to do the same thing.

This is the best answer to your question:
https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/team.html

Woof-CE build system is kind of a separate group of people that come and go.
They tend to work more on improvements to it, which also is improvements to the core operations of Puppy OS.
They tend to work on the inner-working parts of Puppy.
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/woof-CE

Using Woof-CE build system to build a Puppy version. is how Puppy basically operates the same way. in each version built.
This keeps general operations the same.

The OS is a bunch of different SFS files
It boots this way and loads the OS into RAM.
It runs this way.
It uses a save to store changes.
It uses these same core files and programs.
etc.......

I think "Do Ocracy" is a bit like 'Anarchy'.
With Anarchy, if most people have a high standard of responsibility and love for each other, all goes well, why not?.
With "Do Ocracy" it's similar IMO, someone will 'do' something, may get feedback from others, takes it seriously and respond and cooperate with the others.
But can be very fragile, if almost no-one 'do' something, nothing may happen for a period of time until someone stands up to take some 'leadership' (oh, dictator ) and others *may* get inspired and follow (or not ).
I basically do like the "Do Ocracy" principe btw, sort of a natural flow, e.g. like the seasons change.
(just philosophizing, don't take me too seriously about this )

bigpup wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 6:13 am

This is the best answer to your question:
https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/team.html

This list is out of date, like many things in http://puppylinux.com/

Do-ocracy principle is very old in many open-source projects. Not specific to Puppy Forum type developments at all really. Sounds an attractive idea, but also has many dangers:

https://communitywiki.org/wiki/DoOcracy

Perhaps main dangers are:

Complacency

and

If no-one does anything, nothing gets done.

Oh, and if any component, and especially any major component of the system, is or becomes too hard or too messy or too boring, no-one will want to do it anyway.

Even if individuals are or feel capable of taking on the burdensome 'thing' the chances of them doing so are pretty low. Maybe an occasional spark, for the glory, but maybe needs a lot of glory to keep the flames being fanned. It becomes too much to bother about. Keep it sweet and simple if you want do-ocracy to succeed long term.

A successful philosophy and ethos involves more than a simple claim concerning 'do-ocracy'. Technological development is hampered when nostalgia takes precedence. The past is always full of mistakes that should be learned from. That's what the philosophy and ethos 'should be' concerned with. Never be afraid to demolish and rebuild better, sweet and simple. Renovation and preservation has its limits in practice; particularly in matters of technology. Regeneration as key to continuing life is the better basis for the build philosophy and ethos of any future-relevant distro.

I was ready to try a Puppy Linux overhaul in 2019 after starting to build FirstRib/Kennel Linux root file systems and eventually boot-able full functioning distro's using those rootfs's......

and saw techniques that would be good fits for Puppy Linux.

dimkr wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 4:49 pm

bigpup wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 6:13 am

This is the best answer to your question:
https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/team.html

This list is out of date, like many things in http://puppylinux.com/

The list of current Puppy Linux stewards is most likely not up to date.

But the rest of that web page is about the subject of the topic.