Puppy Blogs

Future Puppy Proof of Concept

playdayz — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:34:57 -0500

The future puppy that I am trying to imagine is just like current puppy, lean and fast, friendly and fun, installing in a variety of ways (live-cd, frugal, etc.) on a wide variety of hardware. The aspect that I imagine developing is that the Repository contains a a larger collection of programs, mainly good linux programs that have been well-tested with puppy (even built for puppy preferably). There should even be some windows programs. So when someone installs puppy they will then have a choice of several good browsers, all the main players plus some more experimental programs, and they all have been tested to work most smoothly and efficiently with puppy. The same with office programs--OpenOffice, K-Office, abiword, and some others. People could configure puppy to work the way they wanted by choosing the programs they wanted and they could mix and match from X, gtk, kde, qt, and even windows programs, but all running in puppy. This is all pretty much the case in current puppy, except that one has to search all the programs out and troubleshoot the things that don't work or are incompatible. And this should also allow the puppyians who are interested to see and compare some good software, and refine our ideas of software and interface design.

But how to get from here to there? Ah-ha, this is the idea I just had--I can start small and do a kind of "proof of concept" test of my own. That is, after 4.1 comes out, I can collect some of the pets I have made and some of the great ones that are in the forums and test them together and place them together on a site with a bit of explanation and see how that works. I know that other people are already doing similar things, but not exactly the same thing I don't believe. I love checking out new software and I can see that many members of the forum do also, so that part would be great fun. This is in the spirit of puppy to me--no need to convince everyone to go along, just do it yourself and make it available to people. Okay, so what is the most important thing to do first? Come up with a cool name of course!

Extraordinary lengths to make Windows XP more like Puppy

darrelljon — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:32:14 -0500

The Microsoft Software Forum Network is a website which hosts community forums consisting of expert Windows users. One user called speedemon86 complained about periods of slowness, and random reboots with a Windows XP machine (1.2Ghz 512Mb RAM) used primarily for web browsing, e-mail and word processing. He wanted to trim down the automatic services and startup services. Poolsharkzz offered to help for a fee, boasting of a startup time of 42 seconds. He also suggested upgrading the hardware. Th3_Un1qu3 boasted of a startup in under 40 seconds. Maggotspawn recommended 1Gb RAM for XP. Both Poolsharkzz and Th3_Un1qu3 suggested tweaking the hosts file. Speedemon86 returned pondering a fresh install (of XP+SP3) as XP had grown to 4.8Gb. JedMeister concurred that a fresh install might be quicker than tweaks. Speedemon86 then found 5 trojans. Poolsharkzz suggested a long list of programs to install.

An argument about disabling services ensued with Poolsharkzz and JedMeister in favour and Zxian and Mr Snrub against.

Poolsharkzz admitted he usually spends a day and a half with a client's computer - 12-14 hours - all this for $450.00.

I suggested Puppy Linux, maggotspawn agreed.

The thread can be found here.

PermaPup...

hooya27@gmail.com — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:58:13 -0500

Hey. I just took a partition on my harddrive that was being used for temp space for dvd iso files when copying dvds using K3B in Mandriva. I think that since Puppy is so much faster, leaner, and smaller, I may just dump my Mandriva partition totally. I've gotten dvds to play in Puppy, and if I can copy a dvd with the dog, I think that may settle it.

It would be nice if I wasn't root all the time. Maybe I'll fiddle with that soon.

Dan

PS - Remember, e^i*π+1=0

Puppy

iam — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:41:49 -0500

Have tried/used puppy on anything with enough ram to support install. Several complete installs to HD on machines P2 or less. Microsoft just dropped the ball!

Windows XP, 98 - Puppy 4-0 - Ubuntu Hardy Heron 8.04

jorgeevic — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:26:58 -0500

I have been working for more than 20 years with Windows. Since Win 3.0 graphical interfaces (1986 aprox.) the personal computers at home became possible. Three months ago I found that Ubuntu could be installed from within Windows, since then I entered the Linux world, so far so good. I Installed Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron coexisting with Windows XP. Ubuntu was installed in my main desktop, a Texamatch Pentium 4, 480 MB Ram, 40 GB Hard Disk and 1.7 MHz of clock speed. I had been using this machine with this dual configuration for more than 3 months almost without hazzle. (A litle bit of trouble yet with networking...)

I got Puppy last night, because I was desiring to revive and old Packard Bell Legend 812CD desktop (Bought in 1995 with Win 3.1 and right to get Windows 95 as update). The Packard Bell Leyend 812CD had previously upgraded to 55MB of RAM memory, a 6 GB Hard Disk and 133 Mhz as clock speed.

I installed first Puppy 2.17. It was not an easy task due this desktop is not able (Phoenix Bios 4.04) to boot from CD.

I got great help to do this from http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=7979, and from TeraByte, Inc.'s http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/downloads-free-software.htm that provides BurnCDCC, a fine program that burns CDs from Iso images.

Using wakepup 2.02 and BurnCDCC with the Iso image I was able to install Puppu 2.17 without problems and without damaging Windows 98 that was already installed on it.

Because I did not have any trouble, I decided to download and try Puppy 4.0 using the same wakepup 2.02 and it worked fine.

The Puppy 4.0 is working, but very slow.

So I am decided to make a hard disk bootable installation of Puppy 4.0, without uninstalling yet Windows 98. I have been browsing Puppy official pages and is not completely clear for me how to do this without a lot of Hazzle. I greatly appreciate some assistance with this.

My first time, be gentle.

ZeroC00l — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:29:37 -0500

08-24-2008 1.29am

I installed a puppy on a P3 with 256MB of RAM, 4.3GB HDD, old agp Stealth III S540. Bottomline, it is crappy old Compaq Deskpro. However, it should be good for my son, Austin to learn on. He seems really interested in having his own computer and learning Linux.

Debian project preferred BioPuppy Linux for Bioinformatics

asprakash — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:36:26 -0500

Dear All,

I gladly inform you that, BioPuppy Linux is now encouraged by one
of the Debian project called Debian-Med. The Debian-Med project
presents packages that are associated with medicine, pre-clinical
research, and life science. Its developments are mostly focused on
three areas for the moment: medical practice, imaging and
bioinformatics.

Debian-Med project now preferred BioPuppy to add all the debian
Bioinformatics packages into BioPuppy Linux. For more details about
Debian-Med project, http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMed

The whole credit goes to Puppy Linux. Special thanks to Mr.Barry Kauler
encouraged me in this project and supporting all the community members.

Now, I am looking contributors for biopuppy Linux project from
bioinformatics area. Those who are interested to contribute for
BioPuppy project, please contact me in off line. BioPuppy link is, http://biopuppy.org

My old thread about BioPuppy, http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=29140

-Regards,

Prakash. A S,

http://biopuppy.org

http://electronica.org.in

http://ethicstech.in

NOP 4.0 r1

mandvlee — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:06:50 -0500

Nice Distro but leaving out Abiword a problem. When someone sends a 'DOC' attachment nothing there to open it.

Future Puppy is its own Base

playdayz — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:17:34 -0500

Current users of Puppy will easily recognize future puppy. Just like now, Puppy 7 (or whatever) will install correctly on a wide variety of hardware configurations (the widest variety of any distro). And just like now, future puppy will install in a wide variety of ways, Live-CD, frugal hard disk, usb stick, and so forth. Also just like now, the Puppy interface will be friendly, fun, and fast, making use of traditional gui elements to create an interface that anyone can just sit down and use.

The biggest development from current puppy will be in the Puppy Package Manager, because it will contain numerous selections of fine software written for KDE, Gnome, X, and windows. Users will have a choice of several different word processors, for instance, or media players, etc. As there is not only one style of user so there will be not only one style of program. The KDE and Gnome programs will run as stand alone programs, lean and fast as with everything else in puppy. An extremely important point is that all of the programs will be tested and confirmed to work perfectly with Puppy, with as few dependencies as possible, but all of them satisfied.

How these programs will be prepared is a point worth pondering. I believe that it should be done this way: every program available should be compiled in Puppy (except programs such as Opera which are not available as source)--and then they should be extensively tested to function properly. This is how it has to be done, I think, for the future puppy to be as good then as the current puppy is now.

As I think about it, I see more clearly that this is the way it would have to be done. It would not help to make the future Puppy binary compatibile with Ubuntu or even slackware again, because Ubuntu binaries, just for instance, are compiled to run with the rest of Ubuntu, and that means, among other things, the full Gnome or KDE, but that is precisely what we do not want, to drag along all that baggage (HAL and Dbus, for example). The puppy way is to think things through and then create a solution, as, for example, in running as root, even though it is unorthodox and controversial. If you become dependent on someone else then you lose the ability to do those kinds of things and to be unconventional.

It would certainly be harder to build the library of puppy programs in the way I am advocating, but the end result would be, in my opinion, better and more interesting, and along the way, I think, there would be more to be learned, like, for example, what to do if a program doesn't compile the first time ;-)

A new base for Puppy?

darrelljon — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:46:30 -0500

Would Puppy Linux using a new base be a possible new direction for the development? Slitaz, Damn Small Linux and DeLi Linux would all be potential candidates.