Puppy Linux 5.0.7(beta)
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Question about FSViewer (Fastone) freeware usability (blur, zoom,pan)
Next: Freeware to automatically restore desktop background on startup?
From: Mike Easter on 5 Aug 2010 11:08 Craig wrote: > Would you say that Puppy is relatively easy to maintain & administer? > The reason I ask is that my experience w/Puppy is a couple of years old > and I didn't have it long enough to "maintain" it. > > I've been recommending and loading distos like Mint (& Ubuntu) to people > precisely for its admin & maintenance ease. You don't have the app repository in puppy that you do mint/ub. -- Mike Easter
From: Art on 5 Aug 2010 00:54 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:57:21 -0700, Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: >On 08/05/2010 05:15 AM, Art wrote: > >> I've been "bumping up" several older machines here because of my >> interest in trying out Ubuntu and Mint (for example). Since Win 2K >> and XP run fine with the lower resources, I got interested in Puppy >> (and other "lite" Linux) precisely because I don't have to "keep on >> bumpin" :) I'm hard pressed now to find a reason to bother with >> the "heavier" OS since Puppy does what I want. I know Ubuntu >> has tons of apps available ... I had run 9.1 for some time. But >> I couldn't care less about those kind of so-called advantages. > >Would you say that Puppy is relatively easy to maintain & administer? >The reason I ask is that my experience w/Puppy is a couple of years old >and I didn't have it long enough to "maintain" it. One nice thing about Puppy (for now at least) is that it doesn't keep on bugging you endlessly with long-winded updates the way Ubuntu 9.1 did to me. No update messages at all, in fact. Since my experience with Puppy is only about one week, I can't say anything about ease of maintenance in the long term. IMO, it's easy to administer without being a Linux geek. My many years using various versions of Windows is, of course, an advantage. I like the fact that Puppy is verbose. The programmers weren't shy about putting up helpful hints all over the place (they aren't at all obtrusive though). For example, I got helpful hints about drivers foir my Nvidia graphics card. I don't recall comparable "distributed help" in Ubuntu or Mint. There's a delightful informality in that respect about Puppy. On-screen instructions are conversational and fairly thorough. >I've been recommending and loading distos like Mint (& Ubuntu) to people >precisely for its admin & maintenance ease. > >And congratz on rediscovering the fun in computing! Yes, I think getting more deeply involved with Linux will be fun, thanks :) Art
From: What's in a Name? on 5 Aug 2010 04:23 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:15:01 +0800, Art <null(a)zilch.com> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:22:08 -0400, Mark Warner > <mhwarner.inhibitions(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Art wrote: >>> >>> BTW, I'm running Puppy on a old Dell Precision 330 having a >>> 1.7 ghz cpu and 384 meg RAM. Puppy seems suited to this >>> older environment. >> >> While I've never been much of a Puppy fan (no need to go into the >> reasons; it's mostly just a matter of taste), there's no question that >> nothing runs better on old, low horsepower hardware. >> >> That said, the kit you're running it on now would handle most any full >> featured desktop Linux. If you could get the RAM bumped up to 512 or >> better, that would be icing on the cake, and breathe new life into an >> otherwise obsolete machine. > > I've been "bumping up" several older machines here because of my > interest in trying out Ubuntu and Mint (for example). Since Win 2K > and XP run fine with the lower resources, I got interested in Puppy > (and other "lite" Linux) precisely because I don't have to "keep on > bumpin" :) I'm hard pressed now to find a reason to bother with > the "heavier" OS since Puppy does what I want. I know Ubuntu > has tons of apps available ... I had run 9.1 for some time. But > I couldn't care less about those kind of so-called advantages. > >> Good luck and have fun. > > Same to you. I most certainly am having fun :) > > Art > Here is the forum for lucid puppy http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=55740
From: Martin Clark on 5 Aug 2010 22:45 "What's in a Name?" <maxwachtel(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:op.vgnjald7ijkc1u(a)localhost: > Latest puppy beta Lupu-507 > http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=55740 > Boots directly to desktop using CD, USB or install to hard drive. > Great to recover files from windows(ntfs drivers). So far so good. Yep. 501 (being cautious) running fine off a CD. First Linux I've tried that actually works, finds internet connection etc. Just need to get a CAD application running under Wine ...
From: mike on 6 Aug 2010 02:37
Mark Warner wrote: > Art wrote: >> >> BTW, I'm running Puppy on a old Dell Precision 330 having a >> 1.7 ghz cpu and 384 meg RAM. Puppy seems suited to this >> older environment. > > While I've never been much of a Puppy fan (no need to go into the > reasons; it's mostly just a matter of taste), there's no question that > nothing runs better on old, low horsepower hardware. > > That said, the kit you're running it on now would handle most any full > featured desktop Linux. If you could get the RAM bumped up to 512 or > better, that would be icing on the cake, and breathe new life into an > otherwise obsolete machine. > > Good luck and have fun. > IMHO the BEST feature of puppy is that you can save all the configuration info it took to make your hardware, software, network, passwords etc. back to the live CDRW. You end up with a LIVE CD that WORKS for your hardware/software configuration/desires without having to know anything about how to build a linux distribution. The annoyance is that it uses, last time I tried, multisession cd format. My old laptop wouldn't boot from a multisession CD, so I had to remaster it to a new CDRW every time I changed something I wanted to save back to the CDRW so it would boot. Annoying, but not a deal breaker. If nothing ever gets saved to the hard drive, you reduce the chance of virus corruption. |