Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

are easyos 3.x series EasyBullseye series ?

No, I am staying with Dunfell.

Just to check that you understand Dunfell is OE, not debian as bullseye is.

On the other hand i'm working towards a Easypup style EasyOS using Bookworm, the Debian version after Bullseye. It's first appearance is not due until christmas, and the name may change as there are quite a few differances planned, like it will have it's devx inbuilt. It will have qt5 inbuilt as there are quite a few apps out there that run on it nowadays. It is planned that it will eventually have the sugar/sucrose system on the desktop so you can select your visable icons depending on what you want to do when you first start up, but not on the first release I suspect.

Someone is working on a Bullseye though as it's packages are appearing in the puppy tree, so have a look at the woof-CE git tree for a hint on who.

scsijon wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:36 am

Just to check that you understand Dunfell is OE, not debian as bullseye is.

On the other hand i'm working towards a Easypup style EasyOS using Bookworm, the Debian version after Bullseye. It's first appearance is not due until christmas, and the name may change as there are quite a few differances planned, like it will have it's devx inbuilt. It will have qt5 inbuilt as there are quite a few apps out there that run on it nowadays. It is planned that it will eventually have the sugar/sucrose system on the desktop so you can select your visable icons depending on what you want to do when you first start up, but not on the first release I suspect.

Someone is working on a Bullseye though as it's packages are appearing in the puppy tree, so have a look at the woof-CE git tree for a hint on who.

Why bookworm,not the stable bullseye?
Less apps in Dunfell than easybullseye(if it is released)

Bullseye is very systemd alligned, such as printing and qt5 apps which i mainly use and support. Buster only had minimal systemd allignment so we could get away with it.

However i'm not using Bookworm directly, i'm looking at devuan's equivalent versions as the final base, either ceres or provisionally daedalus at this point in time, Debian's Bookworm has extended it's reliance on systemd and a lot of our internal bits are failing basic tests so I won't be following it.

Why Devuan and not antiX?

Devuan makes extensive use of elogind even when it is not necessary, while antiX makes absolutely minimal while it provides for ways to live without it. My installations with antix (stable, testing,sid) have never had elogind in them.
antix maintains actively all three or four of the levels (old-stable as well) while devuan doesn't actively work on testing, except right before a major release, and does absoluterly nothing with sid/ceres.
antiX has offered various alternatives of runit init and srvs-supervision, that have worked flawlessly (I can't even remember the last time I used a system with sysvinit).

Devuan repositories are questionable and shadowy. It is very hard to tell how debian and devuan packages are blended into one apparent repository. antiX is very clear about this. I have many other concerns about this choice but I will not hijack the thread to an anti-devuan subject.

fungilife wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:11 pm

Why Devuan and not antiX?

Devuan makes extensive use of elogind even when it is not necessary, while antiX makes absolutely minimal while it provides for ways to live without it. My installations with antix (stable, testing,sid) have never had elogind in them.
antix maintains actively all three or four of the levels (old-stable as well) while devuan doesn't actively work on testing, except right before a major release, and does absoluterly nothing with sid/ceres.
antiX has offered various alternatives of runit init and srvs-supervision, that have worked flawlessly (I can't even remember the last time I used a system with sysvinit).

Devuan repositories are questionable and shadowy. It is very hard to tell how debian and devuan packages are blended into one apparent repository. antiX is very clear about this. I have many other concerns about this choice but I will not hijack the thread to an anti-devuan subject.

@fungilife
Devuan, because I have heard about it and worked with it a number of times before in quirky.
?antiX?, I have never heard about, however since you have bought it to my attention I will do some research before comitting time to creating a build. There are other 'modified debian clones' out there but most don't have a full set of packages available.
EDIT: where is a table showing equivalents for the variouis debian build in antix please? I expected that at least to be clearly visable, it's not.
and here i'll take it offline. I'll start a new thread in a day or two after a bit if 'reading'and link it here <> when it's created.
EDIT2: No, i'm not going too go there, having looked at it for a day, it's not suitable, there are a lot of my version of puppy required packages not existing in it's database but do in devuan, and I don't consider it worth my time at this point. End of discussion.

If you haven't heard of antiX you must have heard MX, from ages ago those are the derivatives of the Mepis community.
antiX is more of the backbone system, MX is the fluff over antiX. In my opinion MX goes way too far out to please complicated desktop users, to the point of wondering whether you might as well run Debian instead. But people, especially distrowatch viewers, seem to prefer it over any other unix/linux system, or at least they are attracted by it. It has been #1 among 300 distributions for 2-3 years now.