Rave

I was responding to a forum post, then started typing stuff that I realised was a pet peeve of mine, so cut that out, posted it here...

There was a "review" of Puppy recently, in which the reviewer reported that Puppy was noticeably slower than his Debian installation. Yet, he was running Puppy from live-CD on an old PC with limited RAM, in which the main SFS file was not copied into RAM and was being read from the CD. If he had gone a little bit further and installed Puppy, or even saved the session and rebooted, he would have solved that problem. His Debian installation would most likely have been a proper HD install.

That is a common problem with many "reviews", they don't spend much time doing the review, often don't even install Puppy. Sometimes even if booting Puppy from CD, they don't even save the session -- first shutdown offers to copy the main SFS to hard drive, which greatly speeds operation on next boot.

There was another review awhile back, in which the reviewer complained that every time he started the desktop, the "Please move mouse pointer here for getting started help" message appeared at top of screen. However, what this revealed is how superficial his/her review was -- if he had saved the session and rebooted, that message would not appear.


I am referring to some quite high-profile people here, who do lots of reviews.


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 8:18


Comments:

Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 8:37 by abushcrafter
Hall Of Shame?
What about a hall of shame?

On the bight side it makes for a great filter to sort out the good sources of info from the bad.


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 11:52 by ChrisThomas1
Allow Deny
I don't know much about the workings of Linux but I would like to suggest something, i wonder if it makes sense

In Windows 7, whenever an application tries to run, it pops up a screen and asks us if we want to allow it to run or not?

I was thinking, if a similar system can be adopted in puppy so that whenever something runs, it pops a dialog and asks whether to allow it or not

So, people who are scared to run as root will feel confident as they are allowing each process to happen with their permission and whats not there in the whitelist they can deny or research

There can be whitelists and blacklists.......with option to add or remove

A similar kind of thing can be made with the firewall

Just what I am thinking ok, nothing much...


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 12:16 by BarryK
Another peeve
While I'm at it, another pet peeve is those reviewers who do install Puppy but do a conventional full Hard drive installation. Even though the Universal Installer recommends a frugal installation, they don't choose that, as don't want to think "outside the box".

I recently installed Puppy on a netbook for someone, did a frugal install, with session saved to the entire partition. The partition has an ext3 filesystem. That works really great, as no save-file that has to be made bigger, as the entire partition is available. Plus, SFS files can be loaded in the normal way -- I put in a selection of SFS files for this person.



Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 13:14 by Sage
Rave
I always do a FULL install. I have explained how and why many times on the Forum. I get peeved that few listen, too! I contend that my way is better, even though it's not the intended method. If you read the Forum avidly, one can see just how much trouble folks have with their FRUGAL installs and multiple .sfs s! Any old HD above ~512Mb is adequate for regular Puppies. If they've survived this long, they must be on the long tail of the bell curve and could last forever?!

Might we know from which continent the poor reviews emanate? Ignorance is a terrible affliction. Capitalism is generally associated with poor education amongst the have-nots - your dosh-in-their-pockets is their by-word. Suppression of the proletariat is essential to build their empires. Send the bankers to the salt mines...


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 14:01 by disciple
no Allow Deny
> I don't know much about the workings of Linux but I would like to suggest something, i wonder if it makes sense

>In Windows 7, whenever an application tries to run, it pops up a screen and asks us if we want to allow it to run or not?

>I was thinking, if a similar system can be adopted in puppy so that whenever something runs, it pops a dialog and asks whether to allow it or not

It does not make sense:
- Puppy runs as root to make him simpler to use, not more complicated.
- Such dialogues are what people usually hate most about newer versions of Windows.
- Because Puppy is not Windows, there are no real-life cases where this is actually needed.
- There are valid reasons why people might not want to run as root. If Puppy wanted to cater for these people, he should be set up for multiple-users.


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 19:39 by ICPUG
Frugal v. Full
Sage

Have you ever installed a frugal and used it like it should be used, or are you just as blinkered as the reviewers?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both Full and Frugal installs. You don't seem to listen to the advantages of Frugals, even when Barry is doing the talking.

I, on the other hand, listen continually to your constant unbalanced view on the subject. I just don't happen to want a full install and there are many like me.

I think you will find on the forum many people having problems with both frugal AND full installs. The problem is usually lack of knowledge on how to do it and how to use the boot codes - coupled with a Universal Installer that is not covering every possible combination of need out there.

What the forum does not tell you is how many people have successfully installed in frugal or full because, in the most part, people only come to the forum to report problems. They get on with life if they succeed.

My pet peeve ... people who only look at one side of an argument and constantly belittle anyone who looks at the other side. There is ALWAYS two sides.


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 20:34 by Sage
Rave
"Have you ever installed a frugal and used it like it should be used, or are you just as blinkered as the reviewers? "

Something desperately wrong with your comprehension. Nothing I have ever said should prevent folks doing their own thing, their own way. I have no need of nor any desire for FRUGAL installs. I have been and still do occasionally try them ever since the first Knoppix. They do not suit my modus operandi. I have explained why many times.
There are always at least two ways of doing thing. Your arrogance belies your willingness to think laterally (or at all). Kindly leave the stage.
As for our Dear Leader, I hang on his every word. Unfortunately genius strikes infrequently. In academia, we also understand the importance of dissent to promote the TRUTH. Open your mind as well as your mouth.


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 20:39 by John Biles
Reviewers / Installing
I agree with Barry K that reviewers don't spend enough time testing a Distro. If they did they'd discover the bad and the good features these quick tests miss. I also hate that reviewers seem to review the same release so you get 10 Ubuntu 10.10 reviews filling up Distrowatch instead of 10 different reviews of 10 different Distro's. As for Sage's like of a full Hard Drive install, I to always install fully. If you want to install the other way, go for it, it's your choice.


Posted on 15 Apr 2011, 24:01 by Terryphi
Sigh!
Give it a rest, Sage!

ICPUG stated very reasonably the arguments for a frugal install. Many of us agree with him and dislike the arrogance and academic snobbery you display here.


Posted on 16 Apr 2011, 2:00 by GCMartin
How should LIveCD be used?
Barry, I'm on your side. I clearly understand what you share here.

But, I would like to provide a view that might help.

I am, by no means, an expert/novice in building a Puppy system or writing applications. But, I am a user with a healthy background in systems (very long time) design for user consumption.

There are so many MS users coming to this platform who are NOT accustomed to either a LIve system on CD, a system that runs in ram, nor how to get started when booting from a LiveCD. I would offer that its NOT the users fault from the "user point of view"....its ours.

What might help, here, is a FirstBoot screen that instructs any user on how to start using the LIveCD. It also should detect how the user booted and offer him guidance.

With the current concern on bits/bytes of an ISO, I know how difficult this must be to design an offering like this on 1st boot. Maybe a "beginners" ISO could help to get new users and other uncomfortable users some "safe" passage with Alarms that make it clear how to use the "Live" environment just booted onto desktop. And, if this is an undertaking, it should be in disregard for bits/byts because its emphasis in on providing some detail, text, scripts, and screens that is to help "uncomforatble/new" users become comfortable beginning to use Puppy.

Your latest Quirky or next WARY might be a place to help the newbies and the testors and the "tire-kickers" a path to successfully start a LiveCD and what is expected for uneventful operation.

Hope this helps


Posted on 16 Apr 2011, 3:20 by rjbrewer
full-frugal
I like full installs and have always used them since having problems
with frugal when I started using puppy.

I'd really like to try the frugal install that uses the full partition; but
after 3 tries, I still haven't been successful at making it work.

Trying the new quirky.


Posted on 16 Apr 2011, 8:09 by rjbrewer
full-frugal 2
Have managed a frugal using the full partition.
The install routine is much like that of a full install, as opposed
to frugal.
The instructions are somewhat confusing and inadequate.
It ends up looking very much like a full install; though it does
take about 14 more seconds to boot, as is typical for frugal.


Posted on 16 Apr 2011, 8:21 by WhoDo
Just some thoughts here ...
I understand your pain, Barry. Shoot-from-the-hip reviewers are lazy and in pursuit of self-gratification rather than reader edification. Unfortunately they also attract lazy readers; the sort who won't try it for themselves but rather believe what they're told and stay away on the strength of their laziness. That's their loss and I feel for them on that score. I hope the little rant cleared your craw of its sticky obstruction! :)

On Frugal v Full v Frugal with Partition save:

I have used all of these for various reasons and all have been ideal for the purpose intended. I use Full installs on RAM-challenged machines because they're quicker. I use Frugal on RAM-rich machines because they're quicker. I use Frugal with Partition save on USB sticks because they make use of all of the available space without the need to continually resize my save file.

I do have one suggestion for the future. In 4.2.1 a certain noisy "reviewer" suggested a link to the main area of the partition for Frugal installers, so large quantities of material could be saved outside the save file at the user's discretion. We did that and it worked well. My suggestion for future Puppies is to make /root/my-documents link to a pre-defined folder on the main partition rather than a location inside the save file. That way all of the important stuff for configuration remains with the save file but the personal stuff goes on the main partition - sort of a best of both worlds solution that reduces the need to resize the save file regularly. Experienced users probably do that already but having that layout by default would make it far easier for newbies to work with IMHO.

Thanks for all you do, Barry. I've been along for the ride for a while now and I still think Puppy is the way of the future for anyone who can handle the innovative approach ... and even some who can't! :D


Posted on 16 Apr 2011, 13:13 by technosaurus
full v. frugal solution
the logic already exists on when to do frugal and when to do full... unfortunately it isn't in the installer script, but in the init script (the part that decides whether or not to run in RAM)
basically if it cannot run in RAM - full install, otherwise frugal.


Posted on 17 Apr 2011, 17:34 by p310don
+1 for whodo
The forum is perpetually being filled with questions along the lines of "why is my save file, or disk full?" If important config stuff is saved in the save file itself, and extra stuff, like browser cache for eg, saved outside of it, newbies in particular would have an easier time getting started, and enjoy the benefits of a frugal install without so much hassle.


Posted on 17 Apr 2011, 23:44 by f00-
n00B shoes
@GCMartin, WhoDo and kin - well-stated and agreed. q15x,baby seems a step towards (yay for back to light and modular), but generally some sort of desktop guide in that first initial run would help before a commit to whatever install/save method is used. Winfugees are mostly not too comfy the first time when confronted with the no-nonsense exit options since there's no esc, cancel or 'back' once it starts - perhaps a "tell me more" option/page might be of benefit on that first-run exit before leaving X. Assumptions are made about user level of familiarity (notably in puplet derivatives but sometimes on the main line). Some users get carried away tweaking in the initial run and lose a bit of time if things go wrong (some personal experience there, to be sure).

The unwashed elite may go barefoot if they so choose (blindfolded as well), followed by their tail-holders. mao


Posted on 19 Apr 2011, 8:53 by PaulBx1
+2 for whodo
I've been running Puppy since 2.0, and I finally got around to linking outside the pupsave. Now I'm kicking myself for not doing that earlier. I agree a directory in Root, with a readme explaining what it is for, would be a big help to newbies. One problem is knowing where it should point to however. Also there is an issue with an encrypted pupsave; files stored in that directory would not be protected so the readme should plainly state that. It's not quite like falling off a log, but the idea has merit and maybe a newbie-proof solution can be found.

One "problem" with Puppy is that there are so many ways to do things. This is good, but makes the initial learning curve steeper.