01micko wrote:Why FAT? (ok, that's your choice, puppy is about choice)
Right back at ya: why not FAT???
Well, in fact, it's a combination of reasons. I've had this WinXP/NTFS partition for quite some time, and a FAT32 partition where most of the Windows programs are installed. I separate the programs from the system so that if I ever decide to format and reinstall, the programs and a few documents are still there, in their own partition. Additionally, that FAT32 partition is an exchange area for Window XP and Linux in case I need to exchange data between Windows and Linux.
Well, I almost NEVER use any of that Windows stuff at all. I have many times considered getting rid of Windows and the FAT32 partition for good. But I am always forced to remember that I DO need it:
* I need Windows to backup my PIM data on my BlackBerry at least once or twice a month, and do firmware upgrades although very rarely.
* If my Internet connection goes down and I telephone my ISP support, the first thing they tell me to do is "please open My Computer then My Network Whatever. If I ever mention Linux, they refuse to provide any assistance immediately. Telling them that unplugging the computer from the Wifi router and plugging it directly to their modem has no effect doesn't matter to them. They will absolutely NOT support Linux computers under any circumstance. I am therefore forced to have a Windows installation that will give them the kind of stupid "diagnostics" they absolutely require.
* Sometimes I need to scan documents, with OCR. The scanner works on Linux, but there is no decent OCR package for Linux in sight. In case there is, well, I already own a license for a Windows program, I am not going to buy another one. OCR packages are not cheap.
* Like I said in another thread, I sometimes need to defrag a USB stick so I can boot ISO images. Linux, in its infinite wisdom, says we don't need to defrag a volume, ever. Windows does what I need in this case.
* In case my notebook is stolen, I don't want the thief to boot into a very unfriendly Linux installation with encrypted partitions at boot up and format the whole thing in a heartbeat. No. I want them to boot into a very nice, password-less Windows installation with a key logger and a stealthy program that will "phone home" with interesting data such as current external IP, and maybe run an SSH server...
You see, I need Windows. In which case, I need that FAT32 partition that I almost never use. So I thought that is a pretty good place for Puppy to live in.
I thought about keeping Puppy in the root partition of my Ubuntu installation, but then I open /mnt/home and it's all cluttered with the Ubuntu stuff: /bin, /boot, /dev, /etc, /opt, /usr... That's how I decided Puppy should have its own partition, or at least a much less crowded partition. The FAT32 partition had only two directories: Programs and BlackBerry. Now it also has Puppy.
01micko wrote:Why shouldn't certain system config files be stored in /root?
There are many of them there, all your browser bookmarks in ~/.mozilla (or whatever), all package information is stored in ~/.packages, lots of app configurations are in ~/.config, you will also find jwm settings, mtpaint, the list can go on.... and this is not unique to lucid puppy. All distros use $HOME or /etc (depending on how compiled) for config files, which in Puppy's case is root. BTW, configs in $HOME usually override configs in /etc.
That's different. Those are preferences on how to run programs. Those you probably WANT to carry around, across several machines, even machines you just borrow to run off a USB stick. But the catalog of installed packages should not be in /root. That should be elsewhere, such that it is effectively lost when the OS is upgraded. OK, we want to carry programs with us in our USB stick too, but that catalog should acurately reflect what's really installed. If a bunch of programs are not installed, they should not be listed as installled.
01micko wrote:You probably did other unforeseen damage to /root/.packages. I would suggest going in there and replacing the folder /root/.packages/builtin_files with the original off the CD, also all the Packages_puppy-[whatever] files will be old versions, need to be replaced with originals OR update PPM (I would use the originals), also you can delete the "ghost" packages which you introduced, and also edit the user-installed-packages file eliminating the ghost entries.
You realise you may have other problems with this method you used.
HTH
Sigh. That is a lot of trouble... I will think some more about what to do. Thank you.