Pro's and Con's to App intall options

[clm1919]

So i was reading up on the different ways to install apps on Puppy linux

And i was wondering if there are advantages (or dis-advantages) to three of the options to add applications besides those stated in the description.

• Installed - usually a .pet or .deb file, click them and they will install on your system - installed apps take up space in the save file/folder

• Appimages - , these are usually a single compressed file that you just click to run - appimage apps can be stored outside the save file/folder consuming none of that space

• SFS - file, click these and they loaded as if installed into your system - SFS apps can be stored outside the save file/folder consuming none of that space

Being most familiar with debian (myself) I am more comfortable using .deb files or the Synaptic Package Manager

But "the puppy way" seems to prefer the SFS option (at least people keep referring to SFS and PETs in the forum) and i REALLY want to learn more about but am unsure where to look. I've sent some time on the Old Wiki, even though it states it is out-of-date, it's nicely organized (not counting 404's).

******warning - rambling examples - possibly not relevant to main question above*******

*I recently started playing with Waterfox - download package - un-compress it, click on executable file -easy-peasy.

(IMHO) - If more linux apps were "packaged" this way - more people would be comfortable when first adopting Linux. I'm 100% sure there are VERY GOOD reasons most apps aren't available this way.

* When VLC media player was installed via Synaptic it wouldn't play/find any of my mp3 files (I"m probably just "putting the mp3 folder in the wrong place" for puppy)

- and i recalled @wizard saying there was a PET package when i first joined the forums - i had no idea what that was at the time - and as a creature of habit - if an option i am familiar with is available, I usually use it. (go go "apt -install" !!!)

MORE RAMBLING - GIT was brand new when I mostly stopped learning about linux - there were no flatpacks or snaps ...grub was relatively new and is compared to LILO in every 20+ year old reference book I own....please be patient I'm trying to learn AND re-learn

[bigpup]

Read this:

Basic info on installing additional programs.
viewtopic.php?t=1819

Welcome to Linux software!

Nothing so far, has been a universal way to package software, for Linux.

Too many different Linux Operating Systems to deal with.

Only recently has any Puppy versions had APT or Synaptic package managers to use.
But both still need to be setup to access a repository of software, that has been compiled for what is needed to run, in the specific Puppy version.
Example:
BookwormPup64 has APT and Synaptic.
They use software repositories for Debian Bookworm.
Most, but not all of it will work in BookwormPup64, because it is also using the core Linux files and programs, that Debian Bookworm is using.
The ones that do not work, are usually needing dependencies, that are not in BookwormPup64, and cannot be found in the repositories.
(not in the repositories, because Debian Bookworm already has them, so no need to also provide them in the repositories).

[mikeslr]

When Puppys were initially created computers typically sold with 256 Mbs of RAM, and 512 Mbs of RAM was a luxury. Although Puppys have always managed RAM efficiently, reducing the use of RAM just to hold files --rather than manipulate them-- was a priority.

A pet is just an application packaged as a compressed tar.gz with instructions as to where in your SaveFile/Folder the files and folders it contains are to be deployed. [A .deb works the same way. Puppys include instructions to manage debs]. On boot-up a SaveFile/Folder is mounted. If the boot command pfix=nocopy is used only those files necessary to create menu entries are copied into RAM; if pfix=copy, all are; the default (with neither of those commands) calculates how much RAM you have and reserves at least half for actual work. If you want to operate entirely in RAM, you have to either remaster the 'core.sfs' to include the contents of the SaveFile/Folder or use an application like nicOS-Suite's Save2SFS to 'convert' the SaveFile/Folder to a READ-only adrv.sfs or ydrv.sfs. These are copied into RAM, requiring the use of more RAM just for the applications to be present.

Application.sfses --e.g. firefox.sfs-- are also only mounted. They can be sfs-(Unloaded) on the fly. Again, only as you use them are their files copied into RAM.

Application.SFSes, portables and AppImages have the advantage that they do not over-write each other. You can test a new version while keeping the old until you are satisfied.

AppImages and portables are usually run from the storage media. They are merely linked to your system. Unless in use, they require no RAM except to the extent that you make menu-entries to them a part of your system. You can, however, include them within your system --i.e., in /opt, then execute a Save-- which, of course, now uses RAM just to hold them.