cobaka wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:03 am
... My argument against "standard" would be: if the method changed (in the future) then "standard" would no longer be 'standard' and hence another problem would arise...
собака
Actually, that's a plus for the use of 'standard'. If the standard changes, the 'new standard' would be THE standard. The 'old-standard' --if offered at all-- would have to be renamed but probably wouldn't make it into new ISOs or however Puppys are then deployed.
There, of course, is nothing we can do about 'ISOs' then already 'in the Wild' which used the 'old-standard'. But newbies will be drawn to using 'standard': herd mentality and 'why should I be different' -- a commonly used concept in advertising: 'In a blind taste test more people preferred Pepsi'. And on the of-chance that a newbie has a question after doing-and-about the 'standard' of XYZ puppy, we'll know which 'standard' (s)he means.
bigpup is right. Yesterday I setup an experiment, I burned Racy to a two CDs creating 'Live' versions. I left the CD's 4 inches apart on a shelf overnight. This morning not only were they closer together but next to them were 6 racy mini-CDs.
Seriously, there is nothing 'live' about 'live'. Whoever first used the term may have done so in a context where it was clearly understood as a 'term of art'. Used out of that context it is either meaningless or misleading. We have no reason to perpetuate that circumstance.
From a technical viewpoint, creating a boot-able 'live' deployment to a CD/DVD requires a different program than creating a boot-able 'frugal' deployment to a hard-drive or USB-Key. But from a newby-User's viewpoint what you end up with in both instances is (a) some boot-loader and (b) initrd, vmlinuz, and one or more SFSes on the media [from which that Puppy will be booted to create a layered file-system in RAM]. The boot-loader isn't Puppy. Puppy is the files on the media. Live vs. Frugal is a distinction without a difference.
I placed [from which... in RAM] in parenthesis because while Devs must know that and Users should know that, a newbie having to decide which of two choices to make doesn't have to know that.
Devs have to know different methods and the technologies which provide them. Someone unfamiliar with Puppy should not have to become a Dev or learn the evolution of terminology just to deploy it.
You can't create a 'Full' Install using unetbootin, rufus, or AFAIK* any other 'foreign' operating system deployment application. Only by selecting it from Puppy Installer. It is we, ourselves, who create the problem.
Maybe bigpup and amethyst are right. The problem is that Puppy offers a choice. If --not already having Linux-Mint or AFAIK any other 'Major' distro-- I want it, I will first* have to burn it to a CD/DVD or USB-Key [the latter with or without persistence]. No choice. Having booted into that Distro from that media, I can then install it to a Hard-drive using an application it provides. That applications walks me thru the installation process slowly, methodically with choices and information about those choices displayed or 'Help' being a click away. [Frankly, compared to Puppy, it's a PITA. And if your choices are not just whether or not to keep Windows and how, you have to opt for 'Custom' and are pretty much on your own. But those are not Puppy's problems].
"Full" could simply be eliminated as a choice from Menu>Setup>Puppy Installer. It could be offered as an application on the Utility or separately on the Setup Menu of the 'Frugal' Puppy you've booted into. Those who start that application will fall into two categories: (a) Unfamiliar with what a 'Full Install' means and (b) Familiar but want it anyway. Rather than immediately triggering the creation of a 'Full install' it would trigger the display of a document spelling out the pros and cons of proceeding, ending with 'Continue' 'Cancel' boxes. Those familiar can quickly scan down to the 'Continue' box. Those unfamiliar will at least have the opportunity to find out what they are getting themselves into.
Rename what we've been calling a 'Full' Install an 'Unlayered Install' on the Menu: A clue to the technologically sophisticated, an name to intrigue the curious, but not so compelling as to start newbies down a path they wouldn't willing choose.
We end up with two menu listings: Standard Install and Unlayered Install.
Perhaps (Guessing only) all that's needed from a technical standpoint is some modification, perhaps division, of the current "Puppy Installer" code or its parts; plus, of course, two /usr/.../desktop files.
-=-=-----
*There is another method of deploying Puppys: use Ventoy and/or SuperGrub2 to boot directly from an ISO. IIRC, Grub2, itself, can do that. We have no control over what their creators do. And AFAIK, none of those mechanisms enable the deployment of what we call a 'Full' install.