Over the years, I have learned not to respond to this kind of post ...but sometimes we never learn.
Thinking of it from another angle, the person who posted that Lucid Puppy is a stripped-down Ubuntu is giving us a very great compliment. That they think they are using Ubuntu shows that our chameleon is completely successful.
But then, they only have to look a little bit under the hood to see that Lucid is totally different.
Comments:Posted on 5 Dec 2010, 23:21 by Grumpywolfe13
I think you are right it is best to let most comments slide but this one did need a comment back and you did a great job.
Posted on 6 Dec 2010, 4:46 by fyujj2
The guy has a point.
You're viewing the subject in a technical way and the poster was viewing it in a user point of view.
Lucid doesn't have the same standards as previous Puppies, it's more like a Pupplet.
You have a way of doing things that is very particular and this is what many people appreciate in Puppy. So we stick to Quirky/Wary.
For instance, you tend to leave things in kind of a bare state but you have a broader sense that makes your distros work in a much more universal way.
*I had to append a 2 to my username 'cos I forgot the password*
Posted on 6 Dec 2010, 8:22 by playdayz
"Lucid doesn't have the same standards as previous Puppies, it's more like a Pupplet."
What standards are those?
Standards of Innovation: Boot to desktop, Choose your browser, Quickpet with Video Driver upgrade before Barry did it, one-click SFS install in Lucid 5.2, LupuNews site with Instant Updates. There's a lot more.
Standards of localization: The most language friendly mainstream Puppy ever in Lucid 5.1.1, and more so in Lucid 5.2, incorporating some of the internationalization innovations of shinobar's LupQ 5.1.1
Standards of latest versions of most popular Linux software, tested and configured, and *running* on Lucid. All of the latest browsers, Scribus, Openshot, Google earth, Stellarium, on and on--all with one-click in Quickpet or Puppy Package Manager. I loved 4.3.1, but this was not the case with that release.
Standards of software testing. There has never been a Puppy that did not have some software bugs. Some person might have the impression that lucid has more of those than, 4.3.1, say. But another person might have the opposite impression--that at the very least Lucid does *not* demonstrate any fatal software errors that would risk data loss. On the contrary, it is a big deal when someone finds any kind of software error--and we swarm on it.
Of course Lucid has a different "personality" or "look and feel" than Barry's Puppies. It would be kind of pointless if it didn't.
What we have found is that no matter what we do, there is someone who thinks we should have done it the other way. Barry says the same thing.
Posted on 7 Dec 2010, 8:06 by CLAM01
"Puppy Linux 5.x.x"
I think the name "Lucid Puppy" is the root problem with the official puppy 5. series releases.
If you use Ubuntu's terminology people will think you are a Ubuntu, and you can't really blame them.
I suggest returning to "Puppy Linux n.n.n" for all official release versions, as appears to have been the convention before going to "Lucid".
Use names for alternatives, experiments and puplets, to identify and differentiate them from the past and current official puppy linux.
Even for "Lucid" you have to go to Debian archives to get easy-install oldy-moldy stuff Ubuntu doesn't maintain. And as I understand, all Puppies are going toward being able to use the repositories of all distros, so long as their packages can be translated to .tgz. For this identifying a puppy to any one package-contributing build is misleading, as well as, as the DW posts illustrate, confusing.
Posted on 8 Dec 2010, 8:31 by John Biles
Originally I assume that adding the word "Lucid" was to highlight the fact that Puppy was compatible with Ubuntu .debs to attract Ubuntu users to Puppy and not that Puppy was now a scaled down version of Ubuntu. I leave it up to those who give many hours of their time to each new Puppy release to decide on the future of the word "Lucid" in relation to Puppy.
If like me when you read a Linux review on any Distro that you've also tested for a period longer than the reviewer has, you see that the reviewer misses a lot. Only spending a good amount of time with any Distro will highlight what's good and what's bad. I can assume that those calling Puppy a Ubuntu Remaster need to spend more time using it. I use both and there's a world of difference.
Posted on 10 Dec 2010, 7:39 by gnz11
re puppy no independent
well, i don't ahve a lot of personal time on lucid. when it first came out i was still on dailup and there were issues.
but in general i think what those comments reflect is spill over of discontent with Ubuntu.
and that at first the issues with lucid came from dealing with the issues from Ubuntu content.
but puppy has been my main os for 3 years now. it was the only distro besides Lindows that would use a modem without rubbing two squirrels together.
i appreciate Barry's woof build being able to use foreign binaries.
it will help keep Puppy running for a long time.
the funny thing in a way is that now they are complaining that there is U content in puppy as opposed to beingevil for running root.