Spup future

I have been discussing Spup (Slack Puppy) with Ladislav (Distrowatch) and Patrick (Slackware).

I was thinking that to avoid confusion, I should release Spup as a separate distro to the main-line Puppy (currently 5.0, built from Ubuntu packages).
However, Ladislav does not want to do this, as it will get out of hand ...Slack Puppy, Mint Puppy, Arch Puppy, etc.

Instead, Ladislav suggested that I should announce it as, well, quoting him directly:

there is a danger that this gets out of hand, with Slack Puppy followed by Deb Puppy, Mand Puppy, Mint Puppy, Fed Puppy and I don't know what. Secondly, this new Slack Puppy seems nothing more than a separate edition of Puppy Linux, not a separate distro. I'd be happy to announce it as Puppy Linux "Slack" edition rather than a new distro called Slack Puppy.

Ladislav also suggested that I should consult with Patrick (the founder and main developer of Slackware), about our use of "Slack". This is Patrick's reply (in full):

I'm pretty darn neutral when it comes to this sort of thing, really. Especially since there's not a whole lot that I can do. :-) So, unless something gets extremely close to the name "Slackware" I tend to neither endorse nor object. But so you know, I don't feel like I have any claim to the -ware suffix, but perhaps feel like I have some claim to the Slack- prefix, at least where it comes to Linux related things. And perhaps Ladislav has a point about branding -- it's probably less confusing to name things as different variants of Puppy Linux. Your call though.

I'm very pleased with the latest Spup, and would like to bring out a release version, but I don't want to clash with the main Puppy 5.x based on Ubuntu packages, and I don't want to confuse people (too much) with all these different puppies.

There are a lot of Ubuntu-haters, those who would love a Slackware-based Puppy, so I see a definite "market" for this pup.

So, what I am thinking of doing is follow Ladislav's advice and release "Puppy Linux Slack Edition" version 1.0 -- yes, 1.0, not 5.0. Furthermore, as Patrick can live with our use of "Slack", I will codename it "Slackpup".

So a one-paragraph summary could be something like this:

"Puppy Linux Slack Edition (also known as "Slackpup"), has the small size, speed, ease of use and superb range of applications that Puppy Linux is famous for, and is built with Woof to have the very latest infrastructure. Binary compatibility with Slackware 13.1 means that Slackpup can install packages from the large Slackware online package repositories."

Constructive thoughts on this welcome...

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 9:12


Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 11:46 by James c
Slack Edition
I think your idea of Puppy Linux Slack Edition will be much less confusing to the average user. Probably a lot of people don't pay attention to the "Lucid" in "Lucid Puppy" .......all they see and expect is the "Puppy".
Should be easier to keep the numbering system more under control as well.Basically, your reasoning sounds good.
Been testing Spup 020 and it works pretty well too.

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 12:13 by ozsouth
Yes please
Have always preferred slack derivatives - just seem to go better for me. I think Lad & Pat make good points re- naming. Should be easier for you too.
(BTW - really like Quirky 1.2).

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 12:13 by ozsouth
Yes please
Have always preferred slack derivatives - just seem to go better for me. I think Lad & Pat make good points re- naming. Should be easier for you too.
(BTW - really like Quirky 1.2).

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 13:48 by tronkel
The more variants of Linux that exist, the better.
This huge choice is the very reason that Linux users get protection from viruses - i.e. the virus writers can never be sure which version Linux will run their virus creations.

If Ladislaw were to grasp this bigger picture - that would benefit all of the Linux user base, he might see his way to reconsider if it would not indeed be a better idea to allow Spup to exist as a new stand-alone variant. At the end of the day, does it really matter if this latest SPup ever appeared on Distrowatch? It's a free country. I'd use any distro if it suited my purposes, whether or not it gets listed on Distrowatch. If Barry feels that his concepts are better served by having Spup presented as an independent new version then he should do it that way - no matter what Ladislaw thinks.

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 14:53 by drongo
Personally, I use Puppy and Slax more than any other live CDs, so I'm very happy with this, but I have nothing against Ubuntu or any other Linux distro.

How would a new user know that Slackpup 1.0 had binary compatability with Slackware 13.1 ? Could this info be prominently displayed in one of the help screens and also the app installer program?

Either that or call it Slackpup 13.1 , which would be very weird!

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 15:40 by disciple
Name with the date?
Yes, that is a tricky problem.

If Upup is called 5.x and everything else starts at 1.x it implies that the main Puppy is now based on Ubuntu and everything else is a fork. That is good if it is true, but at the moment I don't really think it is the case.

Is Spup any more a fork than Upup? I haven't tried either of them, but I imagine Upup looks less like the Puppies of old :) And I struggle to see the mainstream puppy being based on Ubuntu long-term. But maybe I'm just one of those "Ubuntu haters" ;)

Two ideas:
- Name puppies with the date - it could get long, but is the best option I can think of: maybe "Upup-20100525" or "Puppy Ubuntu 20100525". And maybe add a suffix to indicate alphas and betas - "Spup-20100624a". I guess the weakness of this approach would be dealing with other distros that have multiple versions - e.g. someone might want to build a Puppy from Debian unstable, or from Ubuntu LTS, which might not be the most recent version.
- Name puppies with the version of the other distro they are based on e.g. "Puppy Ubuntu 10.04", or "Upup-10.04". This approach would probably be rather confusing for newbies though.

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 17:05 by gjuhasz
Naming convention
I propose to assemble the official identifier as informative as possible. For example:
"Puppy Linux" <edition reference>" w"<Woof reference>"."<internal version><[d/t/rc]>
In this case, the "official name" of your Slack Puppy would be

Puppy Linux Slack Edition 13.1 w12.2rc

Notes :)
1. I don't have access to the Woof repo now, so I used "12" as Woof version number in the example.

2. Be sure, people will keep using short names such as "Slackpup-2" or "Puppy Slack-2"

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 17:40 by lobster
Slackers naming convention
There is also Slaxer_pup
This was a Puppy from scratch compilation before Woof came along. It is very much a traditional Puppy.
Spup I should imagine will be known as Puppy Linux 5 'Slack' edition (it has the woof build component so important to Puppy 5) and it utilises Puppy 5 series updates.
Puppy Linux Slack Edition 13.1 w12.2rc
is also a good suggestion - however those numbers ... are not used anywhere else . . .
Puppy 5 is based on Upup - but it is not always called Puppy 5 'Lucid' except internally. It is just known as Puppy 5. If Spup is released, then it may be adopted and further enhanced with (for example Quickpet from Lucid) It would then be fair to call it Puppy 5.1 'Slack'. So names have to be consistent and show something of their source and basis. At the moment Spup could be called 'Puppy Slack' (Special Edition) as we don't yet have a consistent name. Just point out it is based on Woof. Whatever it is called the name will probably evolve to Spup or SP internally. On the Wiki I would use the name SlackPuppy5 to create a page (because people will search for Slack first). There is no right way and going by date is another possibility, as mentioned. Dpup was in its early days known as 'Puppy 5' but is still in Beta and Lucid moved into the 5 position. How will Puppy Puppeee and Puppy 4x4 (4.4) be released and named? I always think of Quirky as Puppy Quirky but that may not be appropriate . . . Names evolve.

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 17:41 by gjuhasz
Same for Luci
Consequently, the proposed name for the actual Luci-207 would be, consequently:

Puppy Linux Lucid Edition w12.7d

For dpup:

Puppy Linux Lenny Edition 5.0 w12.7d

... and so on

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 21:28 by bigpup
new user view
Puppy Linux Slack Edition" version 1.0
Slackpup 1.0 (Slackware 13.1)
Slackpup 2.0 (Slackware 14.5)

My feeling, when a new Puppy Linux is based on some other Linux distribution, the first one out should be named version 1. Then I know version 2 is newer and so on. The next thing I want to know is what version of the other distribution is it based on.

Binary compatibility with Slackware 13.1 means that Slackpup can install packages from the large Slackware online package repositories."

You need to know that the Slackware 13.1, 12.2, 14.5 etc... repositories are the place to find compatible software for the version of SlackPup you have? You need to know what version to look in.

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 22:09 by Raffy
Upgrade path - what is "official"
Good point, bigpup, and I recall that this was already done with Puppy 3.01 (identify the compatible Slackware version).

To users, however, what is more meaningful is the upgrade path, that is, if they can keep using their old install with the new one. Lucid Puppy still has to address this issue (perhaps the Wooflets of 5.x are still addressing this issue). And perhaps pupsave must be named "pupsave" for it to be regarded by users as a continuity of the Puppy?

Posted on 2 Jul 2010, 23:43 by playdayz
Litter of puppies
Hey Barry. Tough call on Spup. IMHO you are being more than respectful. We did step up and get Lucid Puppy 5.0 out the door in quick time. 5.1 is much refined--a significantly better "product" in many ways.

That said, it was always my understanding that Puppies built with Woof would be Puppy 5. On that basis, Spup would be Puppy 5.0 Slack and Lucid would be Puppy 5.0 Lucid. But as Lobster says, that would make two versions of 5.0 that would not update one to the other--at least not easily and reliably. As you have said in some of your promo material, there is a "family" of Puppy Linux distros. Man, I don't envy you having to decide this ;-) But on the other hand, it is better to have too many than too few.

You see I am not advocating any particular approach. I tend to think whatever you decide will work because we will make it work in an atmosphere of respect. The one thing I would request is that we not do anything that would obscure the upcoming release of Lucid Puppy 5.1. Thanks.

Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 3:13 by joe.c
PUPPY name
Promote the PUPPY brand name


Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 4:50 by drongo
That's not a bad idea joe.c . Might be a problem if two variants already share a first letter though. You still need a sensible version number as well. What about Ubuntu-style year and month?

Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 5:43 by PaulBx1
None of the above
The problem with "Puppy Linux Slackware Edition" is that it is both misleading (because it makes one think Puppy is a derivative of Slackware) and it tells you nothing ("Edition" is not a standard computer term).

Why not use something that is actually informative? For example, "Puppy Linux (Slackware 13.1 compatible)". This says it is really Puppy Linux, but is compatible with the Slackware packages. Kinda hits you right in the face. A self-documenting name.

I'm also not crazy about going back to version 1.0, because there was already a Puppy Linux 1.0. Very confusing! The version number should tell us the technology in the thing. The technology is 5.0 technology.

I think you are acknowledging that Spup is going to diverge from Upup, and trying to make that point clear with greatly-different version numbers. I wouldn't worry about it! Let them diverge. Let there be a "Puppy Linux 5.1 (Ubuntu Lucid compatible)" at the same time there is a "Puppy Linux 5.1 (Slackware 13.1 compatible)", even if the two are significantly different. It won't matter! People will go with the distro-compatible version they want, and not pay attention to the others.

This naming scheme also gets around the problem of annoying the other distro owners. What could they complain about?

Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 6:26 by JustGreg
I like Joe.c suggestion
I like Joe.c suggestion with the year month tagged. For example, Puppy Lucid 5.1 would be called Puppy UE 2010.06. It is fairly simple, identifies better than version. In the case of multiple releases in the same month then:
first Puppy UE-2010.06,
second Puppy UE-2010.06.27 (27 is day of second release).
It is workable. My problem is there are too many new versions for me to try them all. I have settle on Puppy Lucid for the desktop and Puppy Pupeee for my net book.

Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 8:45 by WhoDo
Stick with 5 Series
It has become clear from usage patterns that Puppy 5 series is considered the current mainstream in the wider community - probably because there has been no movement on a 4 series update. In that case the best scenario is to go with Puppy 5 SE or similar. It retains the emphasis that this is a Puppy 5 with Slackware compatibility just as Puppy 5 Lucid is a Puppy 5 with Ubuntu Lucid compatibility.

Going back to 1.x is way too confusing and moving up to 6.x would kill off interest in Lupu and Dpup. Maybe Playdayz could be persuaded to name Lupu 5.1 as Puppy 5 UE-Lucid or similar. That retains the family connection. Just my 2c.

Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 13:28 by bigpup
clear your mind
Clear your mind. You know nothing about Puppy Linux. What name would give you the best information about Puppy Linux based on Slackware.
It needs to answer:
What is it based on? (Slackware)
What version of Slackware?
What version of this Puppy is it?
Why do I care if it is Puppy Linux 5 based on Slackware? I need to know it is Puppy Linux based on Slackware and it is version Number what of that version of Puppy Linux.

Look at Pupeee:
Do I care what version of Puppy Linux it is based on? I want to know it works on a net book. If it changes and improves, I want to know if I have the new improved version. Do I have Pupeee 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0 etc..

Posted on 3 Jul 2010, 23:58 by WN2A
As to what works, I have always found that both "Pure" Puppy and Slackware-based Puppies work best for me over the upups. While running P3 and P4 systems, seems lighter is better. Still have font issues on Lucid, not sure why.
As to what to name it- that's a common issue in the open-source world-- you create it, you get to name it. Insert dilemma here....

Posted on 4 Jul 2010, 3:10 by Pizzasgood
I've always been a fan of the different series having their own independent number-spaces. I can see where it would make sense to start from 5 instead of 1 though, at least for series that haven't already picked a number scheme yet. But from there out, their primary numbers would be independent.

As for tracking additional information, I say follow the KISS philosophy. Simple name, simple number. Any additional information (kernel version, woof version, etc.) can be included prominently in the documentation and release statements, and interested people could easily look it up.