Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Support Us

Top Posters

the rumors of puppys death are exaggerated

...mark twain is actually dead though.

someone in irc asked me if puppy is dead... well, no. users had the same question in 2010, and puppy is still going.

bk has put puppy together in a variety of ways, as has the community. when he retired years ago, he was using a script called "woof" to build puppy. this is being maintained by the community as woof-ce.

the most recent official pups are tahr and slacko, and those are still being worked on. however there is also wary and debiandog, which are not official pups but at least theyre more recent. iguleder added devuan support to woof-ce, and created librepup from trisquel.

ive been mixing librepup with newer binaries from devuan, and devuan with tools from librepup, which is the long remaster way to do something similar to barrys newly-renewed initiative called "underdog" (technically what bk is doing should be called overdog, since it runs on top of another distro.)

fig os either runs librepup with devuan binaries ("puppy mode",) or devuan with selected librepup tools ("refracta mode.") so refracta mode is more like barrys underdog, except that the only tools ive imported so far are pretty much... well, just petget. but it still has apt-get and aptitude and things like that.

there are basically two kinds of puppy distro being put together these days:

1. the kind that is official, made from woof-ce.
2. the kind that is made in some other way, trying to make it easier to do than woof-ce would make it.

either way, woof-ce is still being worked on. puppy, dead? not yet.


  • figosfigos Registered
    edited September 2016
    puppy gets trolled by windows people a lot these days. since puppy has no official leaders anymore (and the closest thing to the leaders spend very little time on the forum and have little or no authority there) you can just talk about how windows is better than puppy all day, and troll people endlessly. to quote one windows fan:
    I don't want anyone's views imposed on me.
    what he means is he wants to troll the heck out of the puppy forum about windows, and he doesnt want anyone elses opinion if it disagrees with his. :) he also doesnt want any facts that refute his claims. and he certainly doesnt want his pro-windows views challenged on a gnu/linux forum.

    earlier today, one of the more venomous windows defenders (who admits that he plays with puppy, though cant seem to find one thing about it thats superior to windows-- in fact hes switched back to xp for daily use!) said in a thread about puppys release schedule:
    Why don't they make all/most Linux software with "backwards" capabilities eg. Ubunthu packages that can be used on all ubunthu based distros back to say ubunthu 12. This seems to be an area where Windows have a massive advantage.
    these are the reasons:

    windows HAS TO maintain a large amount of backwards compatibility, because it supports mostly software with no source available. if windows 10 for example, didnt support windows 8 applications, that would make both windows 10 and windows 8 applications more difficult to sell in the first place. its one thing for software that microsoft can repackage without updating (that too is expensive, it could be cheaper to do what they do instead) but theyre supporting an entire non-free ecosystem.

    and to do that, it puts an enormous amount of bloat in dll repositories and registry hierarchy.

    its not an "advantage" (if your distro is based on being lightweight) its a design choice. if ubuntu decided to bloat up their offerings in a similar way, fewer people would use it because of the ridiculous bloat.

    ubuntu (etc) DOESNT have to do it this way, and instead make the design choice of avoiding the bloat-- which is actually what users want more than support for old binaries that a distro maintainer like ubuntu can just recompile. and doing it THAT WAY has the advantage of making lightweight distros like puppy possible. however, the idea of more universal binaries is toyed with regularly, and always seems to get taken off the table again because of the size it would make everything. still theyre working on it as an option.

    the thing is, the poster probably knows all that. hes probably trolling. and thats what puppy really needs, is a bunch of pro-windows fud from people that probably know better-- they just dont want to miss the chance to advocate windows in a thread about puppy.

    slightly relevant, worth reading:
Sign In or Register to comment.