...give it some time to get through to the ibiblio mirrors.
For those of you new to Puppy, this file turns your Puppy into a complete source package compiling environment. SFS files are introduced here:
Note, my Internet connection has deteriorated this evening and I have been unable to upload the Unleashed package. Will try later.
Comments:Posted on 2 Apr 2009, 24:26 by raymundo dionicio
Arch going 64 bits only?
"Recently the developers have been discussing the possibility of adding some additional optimizations to our i686 port to improve multimedia support. This would involve reducing the compatibility with older systems. As some of you may have heard (, Google translation ), this discussion has resulted in the decision to focus exclusively on the x86_64 port."
Posted on 2 Apr 2009, 24:36 by linuxcbon
32 and 64 bits
I think there should be 2 puppy builds :
- one for i386 = 32 bits
- one for x86-64 = 64 bits
So everybody will be happy.
Posted on 3 Apr 2009, 4:45 by Pizzasgood
We have a limited number of people with limited time. You have to think in terms of opportunity cost - by spending time working on and supporting a 64 bit Puppy, what other things will they then NOT be able to work on and support? What could they be doing instead?
Localization? Fixing bugs? Making it boot and run faster? Simplifying the install process? Improving the package management?
IMHO, those are all much more useful than 64 bit. 64 bit has very little to offer. It's not like a 64 bit processor can't run a 32 bit Puppy (my own processor is 64 bit, and runs Puppy fine). It's neat and useful, sure, but for us right now, it just isn't worth the effort.
Posted on 3 Apr 2009, 5:16 by linuxcbon
yes you are right
OK then one is enough : for i386 = 32 bits.
It is universal, works everywhere around the world !
Posted on 3 Apr 2009, 7:25 by nic2109
Things to do .......
From that excellent list my top item would be improving the Repository and Package management processes.
With 4.2 getting such praise and attention we'll become "Mainstream" rather than "niche" pretty soon. So better package management becomes ever more urgent. I vote that we should look to Debian for our template.
Posted on 3 Apr 2009, 8:40 by WN2A
Posted on 3 Apr 2009, 13:33 by amico
Puppy gained it's popularity for one of many reasons that it was giving back a shining 'LIFE' (with all it's meaning) to oldest-dusty-forgotten-in-the-cellar computers. These are not powered by a 64 bits processor.
I'm running many of them, quite satisfied of the immediate response time (of course depending of the app in use) in parallel to others of the newest generation.
Puppy is gaining in maturity, but competition of the same type of distro is there, and with the same potential, learning from the weaknesses of puppy too.
Woof is a great project. TinyCore Linux (learned from DSL-puppy-slitaz...) is another one.
Both are giving the freedom to choose.
Both will be distros killers.
Both are THE next-step.
(Unless we go from scratch: LinuxFromScratch, even Slitaz provide it clear-and-clean...).
ArchLinux have their own approach. Walk-or-die!
(once it was my favourite, until one more update,and...)
64 bits can be useful, but not an immediate necessity.
Posted on 3 Apr 2009, 24:20 by happypuppy
Better Puppies :)
"Puppy is gaining in maturity, but competition of the same type of distro is there, and with the same potential, learning from the weaknesses of puppy too."
The puplet creators are doing the same and improving on the standard Puppy base.
'Turbopup' are 'Puppies' are two examples of the 'next wave' of Puplets - creating improved Puppies with better performance and usability, instead of bloated remasters with added stuff.
Posted on 4 Apr 2009, 4:05 by amico
Turbopup and sons
Turbopup, looks interesting, but...
Providing another packaging flavor for still coming M$ refugees it's a good thing. This is not the case for all the other people for whom M$ is more than prehistoric (unless they're obliged to go back in time and use it; heard it before). I'm one of them.
Once I thought: "why to bother building from scratch when binaries are there waiting to be used?". Still tempted.
Thank's Barry, Woof is there.
Another time I thought too: " Why all these flavors that we try-and-forget the next day? Why all this energy is not put into one direction, and let it be a 'core', solid but 'scratchy' enough to be flavored (Woof-ed) an easy way?"
Again Thank's Barry, Woof is there, but THIS 'core'is left to be a puplet or THE the "distro's kernel"?
(As an analogy: pizza's concept.
The pizza's "core" is the bread/paste, all the other ingredients/toppings creates the flavor/personnality.
It's known that a good pizza is first of all a very good bread! )