Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

This is probably a question for people who have used Puppy for at least a few years.

I boot many 32 distros, but I'm about to ditch Slacko 6.3.2 varieties over compatibility issues. Upups are simply more versatile.

I checked my Slacko pupsave and there isn't anything to miss.

The only thing left for me is the novelty of the MATE WM.

The reason I started using it in the first place is it's newer and ostensibly more current than Tahr.

Is there a reason anyone prefers Slacko6 over its predecessor?

http://slacko.eezy.xyz/index.php

https://linux.softpedia.com/get/System/ ... 5332.shtml

2020 Slackware bias: https://www.slant.co/versus/2689/2705/~ ... _slackware

If you prefer the upup series why not try bionic or newer from the upup series?

Sorry for not directly answering your question but it would take me some research to try to figure this out.

If you prefer the upup series why not try bionic or newer from the upup series?

Sorry for not directly answering your question but it would take me some research to try to figure this out.

s243a wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:58 am

If you prefer the upup series why not try bionic or newer from the upup series?

Sorry for not directly answering your question but it would take me some research to try to figure this out.

No research required. I'm only looking for easy knowledge.

Our backgrounds matter.

If you can empathize:

I'm a long-time Windows user, and the hallmark of a Windows experience is significantly greater system resource demands with each major release.

This machine is barely powerful enough to run its oem Windows, though in print the specs look good for basic computing.

If you carry that way of thinking into Linux, you're going to want to run the oldest Linux release compatible with current computing demands.

For me that's Tahr.

Alas, I've slowly discovered, successive Puppy releases don't significantly hog system resources. I'm still cautious through years of Windows conditioning. Then the issue of updating becomes a question of "Why?" vs. "Why not?"

It's a juggling act, though I'm centering, narrowing to three Puppies, though I'm not in any of them at the moment. (32bit Slacko6 LXDE)

Puppy hasn't always supported multiple desktop environments as well as it has in some some more recent releases.

If you are constrained to 32 bit and looking at older releases, would you not be ahead of the game to look at the more solid Jwm options. jwm is the puppy way by and large and some feel it defines what puppy is? Do you mind me asking if you are adverse to jwm? why?

At the time slacko 6.3.2 was the first Puppy to support UEFI boot.
It also had less issues with sound than Tahr, IIRC.
Slacko is solid, nothing fancy, it just works, a good working dog.

I have not used it a long time.
But I still do use the successors a lot, slacko 6.9.9.9 or slacko 6.9.9.10 or slacko RC7.
Links here.

I do not think the older puppy in a series necessarily hogs the system less than the newer one.
So you should try/use the newest one that is still compatible with your machine.

Especially that is true for the kernel.
If you have/find a kernel (from a good working puppy) that works good for your machine, keep it aside
and swap it in when you have a puppy with less compatible kernel.

Just another tip: you can run with pfix=nocopy so you've left most of your RAM for work.
Also, use a swap partition and monitor the swap (with htop for example) to see if it is used.
It shouldn't hardly be used to run good, just for short emergencies.

The biggest difference is the base. Slaco is build using slackware packages if memory does not fail me entirely. Thar on debian/ubuntu packages.

The slacko brand worked better for me for a long time. If I recall right sound and wifi worked at an early stage. Thar* failed in the first releases. Long since fixed by now. Add to it that my own build scripts was based on slackware.

So I think it comes down to habit and preferences.

Anyway, thanks to all the good work and effort from a few dedicated developers and lots of input from us hobbyist we have choice. A big thank you to you all.

Best regards
Uten

williwaw wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:19 am

Puppy hasn't always supported multiple desktop environments as well as it has in some some more recent releases.

If you are constrained to 32 bit and looking at older releases, would you not be ahead of the game to look at the more solid Jwm options. jwm is the puppy way by and large and some feel it defines what puppy is? Do you mind me asking if you are adverse to jwm? why?

I don't mind, but if you were my stalker (reading all my posts) you'd know that I'm not adverse to JWM. I'm Puppy obsessed and boot it every day.

I simply prefer a more user-friendly Windows Manager. I'm still struggling finding JWM apps and remembering their names. I can right click in LXDE or XFCE and edit menu items, and most importantly, I don't have to install the XFCE App Finder in XFCE.

Still above all this, I came from Mint XFCE.

I think if Puppy is JWM the commitment should be solidified and the pretending should end.

I'd probably be using Puppy since Precise I first booted several years ago if it looked like XFCE. I thought,

"Awe cool, this boots!"

Then I didn't think it was easy to get networking going or use apps, so I put Puppy on the shelf.

I have a self-joke I've been growing and repeating in my head:

pupX: set properties of X

It's kind of chic and f-u geeky at the same time.

Uten wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:03 am

The slacko brand worked better for me for a long time. If I recall right sound and wifi worked at an early stage. Thar* failed in the first releases. Long since fixed by now. Add to it that my own build scripts was based on slackware.

So I think it comes down to habit and preferences.

2 votes for sound. I haven't noticed any glitches, but have noticed lower volumes than I'm used to in Windows. That could be something in the mixer, no biggie.

I'm going to develop a Debian/Ubuntu habit.

The difference between Slackos and 'Ubuntu-pups' doesn't center on 'improvements'. It's a matter of design philosophy. Slackos inherit the characteristics of their binary-compatible versions of Slackware; 'Ubuntu-pups' versions of Ubuntu. Slackware's philosophy is a conservative approach: if it ain't broke, don't fix it; produce a stable base operating system and leave it to the users to figure out how to add 'bells & whistles'. Ubuntu wants to compete with Microsoft in providing the user with a rich experience and lots of software choices OOTB. The downside of Slackware's approach is, as stated, it's up to the User to figure out how to get the 'latest and greatest' applications. The downside of Ubuntu's approach is that the latest on paper may not be the greatest in practice.

I recall several posts that the quality of sound on Slackos was better than their 'ubuntu' contemporaries. But you'll note that our musicians, such as taersh, build on 'Ubuntus': the required applications work OOTB or with some modifications rather than the user having to spend most of their time creating them. Most of the time I run 'ubuntus'. But I do occasionally boot into Slacko 5.7.x. No way of proving it, but to these old eyes its picture quality seems better than when running the 'ubuntus'.

For my money, the best Ubuntu-pup were/are the Xenials 7.5*. Their builtin applications did the jobs intended but used fewer computer resources than subsequent Ubuntu-pups. Xenial Xerus was released in April of 2016 and Xenialpups appeared about the same time. It took two years for all the applications I might use to become both available and bug-free OOTB. Xenial Xerus will reach End-of-Life in April 2021: it will no longer receive support from Ubuntu. But even today it's openssl --a security system required for accessing web-posts-- is out of date. Updating requires newer glibc libraries. An OS can only have one version of glibc. So the work-around is either (a) replace its glibc --along with everything else that would require-- with that from Bionic or fossa and end up with an operating system as demanding as Bionic or fossa or (b) build glibc and openssl into web-browsers. Neither choice is practical.
Slackware-current, on the other hand, by sticking to the basics has a current openssl and, AFAIK, requires scarcely more computer resources than the version of Slackware published 8 years ago.

--=-=-=-=-=-=-
* The original was 7.0. 7.5 incorporated 2 +/- years of fixes, adjustments, ideas for improvements and substitutions.

Slacko and Tahrpup are developed by completely different people.
Each one decided what is in their Puppy OS.
They both use some of the core Puppy files and programs, but after that, it is up to each developer, what else is in it.
They are both the same and also different.
So you may like how Slacko does something, how another Puppy version does something, or what programs each provides.

I wish people would really understand what based on Slackware, Ubuntu, Debian, etc...... distributions really is all about.
Every Linux operating system uses some basic core Linux programs and files. All of them are the same, but could be different versions.

Example Ubuntu Fossa:
A Puppy version based on Ubuntu Fossa (Fossapup64 9.5) goes to the main Ubuntu Fossa repository and gets these core Linux files and programs from it.
Why?
Because Puppy does not have a repository that keeps up with this stuff and can provide them.
But it is very much a completely different Puppy OS than Ubuntu Fossa.
The other possible benefit to Puppy is there is a good chance software compiled for Ubuntu Fossa will also work in Fossapup.
They are both using the same versions of the core Linux files and programs.

The other big difference in Puppy versions, produced by using the Woof-CE build system.
When where they made using it.
The Woof-CE build system is constantly being improved and tweaked, with a lot of improvements to the core Puppy processes, programs, and files.
Fore sure, a Puppy made now, using Woof-CE, is very much improved in everything, than a Puppy made, even a few years ago.

There are a lot of Puppy only developed and produced programs that are in Puppy versions.
These programs get tweaked, bug fixed, improved and changed over the years.
A Puppy version developed in say 2015, is not going to have the newer versions of these programs.
For sure, some programs have been in Puppy since 2005 and now work much better than they did in 2005.

The other thing that is important is what Linux kernel is in the Puppy version.
If the computer is very new, only the newest kernels will support the hardware.
Most of the kernel is hardware support.
Needed modules, drivers, config settings, etc......... even kernel features.
Usually to go along with the kernel hardware support is drivers, firmware, controllers built into the Puppy version using that kernel.

So, the newer the hardware the newer the Puppy version you are going to need along with the newer the kernel.
However, Puppy still tries to support as much older hardware as possible, even in the newest Puppy versions.
But it does reach a limit on what can still be supported in newest Puppy versions.
Linux kernel development has and still is dropping support for very old hardware. A constant moving target what is still supported.
Taking a very new Puppy version and changing it to use a older Linux kernel can help to bring back support for very old hardware.

This is the chart of when a Puppy version was released.
6.0.5 is Tahrpup
6.3.2 is Slacko

With Puppy Linux.
It is very true.
If the Puppy version is not broken for the computer it is on.
Do not try to fix it.
Be happy and use it.

If you are constantly wanting to use the newest version of some program. (web browsers)
You may just need to constantly be updating dependency files and programs to run it.
Web browsers seem to constantly be updating and want to be using the latest versions of everything.

mikeslr wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:13 pm

For my money, the best Ubuntu-pup were/are the Xenials 7.5*. Their builtin applications did the jobs intended but used fewer computer resources than subsequent Ubuntu-pups.

Makes sense. I think I learned this the hard way through trial and error.

I appreciate philosophy but also keen on goals. E.g., growing the user & support base vs. remaining a technical niche. There's competition in both arenas, foss creators concluding what will be.

bigpup wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:19 pm

However, Puppy still tries to support as much older hardware as possible, even in the newest Puppy versions.
But it does reach a limit on what can still be supported in newest Puppy versions.

The community does a good job of that in both directions and can pat itself on the back for it.

I can't boot 4.3.1, oh darn! Everything since boots at the very least.

If I lose a wi-fi driver due to conflicts, someone on the forum can figure it out. Puppy is a stayer.