The T2 build is pretty up-to-date with the latest packages, including SeaMonkey 2.0.
Woof has a directory 'packages-templates' which contains "templates" that define how a raw binary package is to be cutdown and modified to be Puppy-compatible. I have updated directory 'packages-templates/seamonkey' to handle SeaMonkey 2.x.
Actually, it isn't easy. It has to handle a directory layout that has been butchered by Debian/Ubuntu as well as normal layouts. The raw binary package compiled in t2 is of course "normal".
Apart from cutting it down a bit, there are little things to tweak. For example the 'prefs.js' file has to be modified so that the first time SM is run the Puppy home page comes up and not the SM home page.
Comments:Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 9:41 by edoc
Sounds neat re. SM 2.x and WOOF!
1. SM searches for Mozilla Profiles on any mounted device and asks which the user wants to load - this way there isn't the hassle of manually replacing the default every time SM is updated on a PC.
2. SM prompts for alternative Search Engines (or at least includes http://ixquick.com) and allows one to delete any never-used (in my case all except for ixquick).
3. SM comes with auto-Updates normally disabled. (This may no longer be the problem it was. I have allowed auto-Update under SM 2.x without problems but it used to trash older releases of SM.
4. Provide a list of Puppy-friendly plug-ins and other mods commonly performed by Puppy folks - this would ease the complexity of set-up and speed the move from load-to-productivity. (This fits the model of WOOF as a distro-
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 18:00 by ttuuxxx
Hi Barry any link to the the updated woof with T2?
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 18:17 by Sage
I guess that despite all the evidence, polls, as well as exhortations there is no chance of dropping this appalling browser once and for all?! It is truly terrible and doesn't even render the NatWest bank website, amongst others - a guaranteed showstopper. Not as if there aren't a plethora of alternatives. My own preference for the remarkable Opera browser is very well known, but Firefox and the special derivatives devised by Puppy campfollowers are also well-liked. Others are sometimes mentioned in dispatches, too. Just add Claws as an email client - never heard a bad word against it.
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 18:55 by BarryK
SeaMonkey 2.0 is Firefox. The SeaMonkey project has now fully synchronised with the Firefox and Thunderbird code. Rendering should now be identical. It should mean also that Firefox addons will work in SM2.
No, I'm still sorting out some bugs. Just a couple, should fix them over the next couple of days.
By the way, ignore all the T2 binary packages that I uploaded. I have rerun T2 and have a new set.
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 19:33 by Sage
Yes, indeed - that's the theory, but see my latest comment in:
Firedog works but sadly slows events. Mainline Firefox, is also a bit slow; but if all its variants are included, it comes out favourite. Otherwise, the single most popular browser amongst Puppy users is Opera; the latest incarnation is nothing short of remarkable.
I suppose there might be something in the Natwest code that specifically rejects SM (and Iceweasel), but you'd expect it to reject all the minority players as well as FD too if you use that logic? It doesn't.
Whatever, SM and all it's variants are too slow. Furthermore if SM with its suite are built in, adding Sylpheed/Claws and another HTM reader just adds extra bloat - same argument as adding FF to IE in 'doze. How much better to select the optima from the outset?!
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 20:37 by nic2109
IETabs in SM?
For those rogue sites that still only work properly on Internet Explorer there's a Plugin for Firefox called 'IE Tabs' that renders pages using the IE engine. Is that available for SeaMonkey?
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 22:02 by Terryphi
User Agent Spoofing
Opera allows changes of user agent to identify as Firefox or Internet Explorer. This is sufficient for most bank sites. Shame Seamonkey does not have same spoofing facility.
Posted on 13 Nov 2009, 24:53 by edoc
SM - Integrated FF is not
Seamonkey is an integrated suite - Firefox is not - and when one tries to symlink and otherwise get the various non-integrated pieces of separate apps to play nicely together time is wasted, the integration is imperfect, and upgrades almost always break that work. It is very frustrating, scares off newbies, and interferes with productivity.
Opera is highly bloated compared with SM. It is preferred by some, there is no evidence of which I am aware that "it is the preference of *most* Puppy users". It is easily added by those who want it, same as OO, etc. Why force it into a distro that is designed to be small and simple, yet complete?
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 2:23 by Ramachandran
In my view, Google Chrome is faster than other browsers. I have installed Google Chrome Development version 4.0.2 and it is faster. I have observed some problems, It may be due to unstable version. Also simultaneous working with Open office is not possible. I thing, additional file installed with Google Chrome is causing problem. ie. dbus. Otherwise, I like google chrome.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 3:06 by Sage
"...there is no evidence of which I am aware that it is the preference of *most* Puppy users"
edoc is just plain wrong! There was a poll on the Murga Forum fairly recently. Results were exactly as I described. Neither is Opera any more bloated than SM. Get your facts right edoc and don't spread misinformation. Clearly show your personal preferences, as I do, if you wish, but don't blur the edges of fact and fiction. For those that want the 'extras', Opera also provides these along with far more options and much greater speed than SM. I didn't say it was smaller, note. Integration of email clients & co has never been a priority for me - I prefer to select them separately to suit my own needs.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 3:53 by Sit Heel Speak
pinstall.sh in the devx?
The Karmic 432 devx, if you mount it, will be seen to contain a pinstall.sh. Does a pinstall.sh work, in an .sfs?
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 3:58 by playdayz
libc 2.9+ ?
i am currently using uPup 4.32, the one you Barry built and one that i have built with Woof and actually managed to tweak a bit. i find srware iron browser extremely useful and enjoyable and it needs libc 2.9+ I think that is it. anyway ubuntu 9.10 and uPup 4.32 have it so I would just like to request that it be considered for inclusion in other builds--i will wait for this new t2 build and see. thanks as always.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 4:34 by edoc
A statistically-significant poll that truly measured the preferences of the majority of Puppy users was conducted on the Murga-Puppy Forum?
Or the typical online poll of which few are aware and fewer-still participate?
Opera is smaller than SM? That's new - it never used to be - all dependencies included. Will have to look to see. Anyone know why then that Barry prefers SM to Opera? Last time we had this discussion the size of SM was one of the key elements in its favor.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 6:56 by disciple
> IETabs in SM?
> For those rogue sites that still only work properly on Internet Explorer there's a Plugin for Firefox called 'IE Tabs' that renders pages using the IE engine. Is that available for SeaMonkey?
No, this actually embeds IE in FF, so you need windows, or you may be able to use it with wine and internet explorer and a windows version of firefox or seamonkey.
BTW Sage is right... Opera is less bloated than Seamonkey, but it uses QT, which isn't in Puppy. But I can't figure out why everyone's trying to persuade Barry about browsers, since he's supposed to be retired...
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 6:59 by disciple
Hi Barry, there is a broken link on http://puppylinux.com/development/howpuppyworks.html to http://puppylinux.com/config-puppy.htm
Has the latter page moved or what?
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 8:05 by puppyite
What people think
It is critically important that you visit my page on the wiki.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 8:09 by BarryK
Hmmm, long time since I looked at that page -- 2006!
config-puppy.htm is not there anymore.
I need to do a total update of that page.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 8:13 by BarryK
re what people think
I have responded to your email.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 14:05 by Sage
"Opera is smaller than SM? That's new - it never used to be - all dependencies included."
For reasons that elude me, we are beset by folks who can't read or comprehend what is actually written on the page.
Furthermore, the last time BK pronounced on Opera the absence of Qt and another component were troubling him as well as its non-free status were troubling him. If I recall correctly, he had contacted the developers who were attending to these aspects. That was a very long time ago. Since then we have been treated to a plethora of derivatives running Opera. Still one of the best is JM's MeanPup at ~50Mb.
Posted on 14 Nov 2009, 14:07 by Sage
Double trouble! Just got up!