Talk:Puppy Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Puppy is not based on any other distro[edit]

Puppy is not based on any other distro. Edited the page to reflect this. Puppy remains independently developed, Barry is the final authority on what puppy is. Kernel is not monolithic, it has modules. Corrected this as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirkpuppy (talkcontribs) 15:29, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

It still says "The distribution, based on Slackware, is actively developed by Barry Kauler". This is especially bad, because lower down it says: "However, this does not mean that Puppy Linux is now a Slackware-based distribution."

...Only one of these can be true! I'm not sure which one so I will leave the change to someone who knows Edwardando (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was the case that Barry used Slackware as a starting point at first but he modified the code extensively to allow Puppy to become much smaller than other distro that simply repackaged the base distro (like DSL). He also added a lot of core stuff like operating the FS from a write-once multisession CD or write-caching flash drives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizst (talkcontribs) 09:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole intro now needs a rewrite, as Puppy 5 has much more to do with Ubuntu than Slackware. Few if any of its documentation stresses ease of ease (though it's prety easy to use as it happens. Surely the USP is to do with size and small system demands.Sjwells53 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ease of use may not have been an original priority. However, many users have been attracted by the ease of use. Preferring it over Ubuntu and Ferdora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpatterns (talkcontribs) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV edit[edit]

I tried to lighten up a bit of the POV; I deleted some sentences outright as they served no real purpose other than promotion of the distro. Feel free to put it back in, but please provide your reasons for doing so. --Pyreforge 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Version edit[edit]

Updated version 2.02 to 2.10 --Chickenjohn | Talk 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Puppy, NTFS[edit]

I believe that the NTFS issue was fixed quite some time ago, among many other things.

Puppy has come a long way recently, it's development is extremely fast, although I see signs of fragmentation/forking.

maybe this entry needs updating?

I would do it myself, but I am a newbie to Wiki, so don't know how to, although I have the info about Puppy

my opinion: this entry is stale, hope I can help

If you have information, and can give links, please keep us Wikipedians informed. Don't worry about being a wiki noob, just add it in some way to the article (provide links) and if the format is incorrect someone will fix it for you. If you really don't want to do that, you can even just present the information here (as long as it's verifiable) and someone will add it to the article. 220.146.214.172 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Puppy Linux developed with the T2 SDE and thus based on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dontchev (talkcontribs) 14:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


Xvesa -> KDrive??[edit]

"Puppy comes with a choice of 2 graphical servers: X.org (full-featured) and Xvesa (lightweight)." -- "Xvesa" redirects to KDrive, but that article says nothing about Xvesa. Can somebody please add a note to KDrive clarifying this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the wikipedia entry for xvesa redirects to KDrive because they're definitely not equivalent. For example, you can have xfbdev KDrive server or xvesa KDrive server. However, I do not know enough to write about it. --Mizst (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Need update to discuss v4.00[edit]

Article says "The latest release is 4.00, released on 2008-05-04." Section "History" discusses Puppy Linux 3, 2, and 1, but not 4. Can anyone update? Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 4.00 belongs in the "History" section just yet ;) but what can be done is add a new section for the current release and add details about 4.00 there. vendion (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Morphix Reference[edit]

I removed the reference to Morphix with regard to multisession because I believe it is inaccurate. Morphix allows you to construct live CDs easily, but I have not found a way to actually save documents on the booting CD the way Puppy does. Actually I have not found any other distro that does this.--Mizst (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Also, Puppy 4 marks the end of Barry Kauler's association with this Linux project."[edit]

"Also, Puppy 4 marks the end of Barry Kauler's association with this Linux project."

I have looked on his blog, and can find no immediate evidence to support this.

Do we actually have any source for this information?

70.48.71.70 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


We do indeed, Barry's Blog

http://puppylinux.com/blog/?viewCat=Retirement E A (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame. :( 64.230.126.22 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A big shame, however the project is strong enough to continue on it's own Jonpatterns (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It was at one time Barry's intention to retire from Puppy and work on other projects, but it didn't happen see here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ChurchPup[edit]

Any thoughts on adding a reference to ChurchPup? [1] Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No specific puplets are mentioned in the article so I don't see why we should start now particularly if we have to start mentioning them all.--Darrelljon (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Runs as root[edit]

The fact that Puppy Linux runs as root is one of the key features of Puppy - it's worth a mention. Is this still the case?

I know it's claimed to be less of an issue for Puppy when it runs from LiveCD because if there's a problem, the OS will be rewritten on the next bootup. But it's still considered bad practice by many, and I think even Barry says it's not suitable in certain contexts (e.g. running a server). Perhaps someone who understands it better than me can write something NPOV about this issue and add it. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

External links removed by Ahunt[edit]

I respectfully ask that either you restore the links you removed or permit me to restore them by reversing your edit. I do not agree with your reasons for removing them and IMO the links did not violate wikipedia policies. Puppyite (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO says the following links are not allowed "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website...10. Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups". - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:ELNO says the following "Links to be considered: 4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." IMO links you removed met that critera. Puppyite (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Forums are not "knowledgable sources". The rule is here to prevent spamming links to forums specifically. I have nothing against forums for Puppy Linux and have used the official one myself, but this adds nothing of value to the article and isn't even listed as an official Puppy forum at http://www.puppylinux.com/forums.htm. Putting it in here is just trying to promote a website and not even one endorsed by the Puppy Linux project. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

possible malware[edit]

reference 11 leads to http://ww38.kmeckstein.com/linux/and-they-call-it-puppy-love/ which my avast antimalware reports as malicious or possibly just malformed. Feydun (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a placeholder page that is there because the website has been taken down. Archive.org doesn't have that page available to replace it with, so I will just tag it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FatDog ?[edit]

FatDog64 seems to take some elements from Puppy, some - from TinyCore. It also features the easiest persistence deployment. Once the pen drive was made bootable with FatDog64, it's enough to create a folder "Fatdog64" in the drive's root (in which case the entire pen drive can be used for persistent data). Don't know if it's worth a mention - Yura87 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just need refs and it can be added as a derivative. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)