How do I install software?
Puppy has a compelling feature...you can boot it from a CDR,
change the configuration then save that back to a bootable
CDR. That's way cool.
Problem is that it's not very useful if you can't install additional
software.
Puppy 4.1.2
Is very nice as far as it goes.
The package manager seems to work if you want something
in that list. But what if you want something else?
I see lots of discussion on the web about how to install a specific
package. But what about a general method?
I'd prefer the ability to install packages that are available.
That means .rpm or .deb or something mainstream.
If you can do it manually, why can't there be an installer
that works with .rpm packages????
My pet linux peeve is that distributions move files all over the place.
File locations are obvious if you know where they are and impossible
for a newbie to find if you don't.
I thought I'd try something simple...VNC.
I went to what looks like a dedicated puppy site:
ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributio ... 2.9.tar.gz
and downloaded the file. I unzipped it and got a directory
tree. There's one executable and a BROKEN symbolic link
to pc-2x.xpm.
If it's a dedicated puppy site, why the heck is the link broken?
I searched for the file and recreated the symbolic link.
When I click on tightvnc, nothing happens. Well...
the icon flashes three times or so.
I have no idea what to do with the files.
I GUESSED and put them in the root directory tree
in the same locations. In this case /usr/local/bin.
Still no joy.
I'm finding broken links to package conversion programs.
I'm finding complicated manual procedures for certain
packages.
What I'm not finding is enlightenment.
If this were that "other" operating system, I'd click
the install file and it'd be done. Ditto for RedHat.
Is there any hope for a similar situation for puppy?
Thanks, mike
How do I install software/hardware?
-
Bruce B
Mike,
It's not a perfect world, fortunately, you communicated well enough, the problem is easy to understand and resolve.
The package you installed is for Puppy version 1.xx
You probably installed it in 4.xx
Research indicates your .xpm file, pc-2x.xpm, the real one was dropped after version 3.01
Testing indicates you are also missing these files which were also dropped after version 3.01:
libXaw95.so.7.0 (file)
libXaw95.so.7 (symlink)
This is why the program will not run, it needs the file and symlink. I've attached all the missing stuff to the post. You can put the lib* file and symlink in /usr/lib or /root/my-applications/lib
Bruce
It's not a perfect world, fortunately, you communicated well enough, the problem is easy to understand and resolve.
The package you installed is for Puppy version 1.xx
You probably installed it in 4.xx
Research indicates your .xpm file, pc-2x.xpm, the real one was dropped after version 3.01
Testing indicates you are also missing these files which were also dropped after version 3.01:
libXaw95.so.7.0 (file)
libXaw95.so.7 (symlink)
This is why the program will not run, it needs the file and symlink. I've attached all the missing stuff to the post. You can put the lib* file and symlink in /usr/lib or /root/my-applications/lib
Bruce
It seems there is little hope for a lesser puppy 
-
Bruce B
Package ManagementUltraPUP wrote:Bruce the sequence of events described by Mike is incrediable :( It seems there is little hope for a lesser puppy :P
The 700MB Distro vs. 97MB Puppy (or if you prefer) 97MB Puppy vs. 700MB Distro
========================
Both ISO files have compressed software, which when expanded would be around 3x the size.
People install Puppy, then start adding to it. Much of what they add may already be in the big distro. To the extent the big distro already includes and sets up software people would otherwise install in Puppy, the big distro offers an advantage to the user.
On the other hand the big distro may add more software than the user wants or would add on his own, run more process and such. So Puppy draws some people from *buntu for example, simply because the buntu ran so slow.
Some of my favorite software, Puppy includes, while the big distro just stays with the Gnome or KDE equivalent - which I may not prefer.
I find myself, for example; rounding up other software like the Minimum Profit editor because I like it so much better than the Nano the big ones put it. Meaning to say; software the big distro doesn't even have available.
==========================
Repositories
This would mean files not included with the CD, but available. A lot of times the big distro also has huge 'official' repositories. To the extent they are larger or more well organized, then that would be a big advantage for the user who wants a lot of software selection and automated installations.
===========================
Mike's case
The directory was marked for version 1.xx in Puppy's naming convention. If recognized as a version 1.xx package, the user might anticipate the possibility of some problem with newer Puppy versions. The reason being is; it was package long before version 4.xx was even conceived.
Because I recognized what happened, and Mike provided all the information, I had a fairly good idea where to look. I only had to go back as far as 3.01, which means that package had a life span from 1.xx thru 3.xx which isn't bad. A life span made longer simply by putting back the needed files.
Something from RedHat version 8 or 9 may not work with the current Fedora, CentOS or RedHat. If the user knew he was installing an older version package into the latest version, he may sort of understand why there might be a problem. If the problem was simply a lack of support files, as in this case with Mike, the user could likely go back to the earlier RedHat and find them.
==================
As for me
I like lightweight software and particularly operating systems. Considering all the pros and cons of the various lightweight contenders, I prefer Puppy.
.
-
UltraPUP
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat 31 Jan 2009, 15:00
- Location: 38deg57.396N / 119deg46.021W / 4,740ft MSL
Bruce:
There is no other distro for me; Puppy is the end game. There was a time when I was hardwired and running all flavors of puppy.
When the company, I'm employed at, offered their wireless hotspot, I dropped the hardwire and set up on the company hotspot using The USB Super WiFi Antenna by ZyDas. Puppies prior to Puppy_412 just would not connect or continously dropped off until Puppy_412.
[SO]
Until Puppy_412 I ran other distros, but always coming back to try the latest release of Puppy.
I'm a noob, but I enjoy learning from your post as well as from others on the forum. The foregoing discussion between yourself and Mike is enlighting, but some what daunting to a noob, such as I. However, I will hang tough and hope some of the advise and direction rubbs off.
There is no other distro for me; Puppy is the end game. There was a time when I was hardwired and running all flavors of puppy.
When the company, I'm employed at, offered their wireless hotspot, I dropped the hardwire and set up on the company hotspot using The USB Super WiFi Antenna by ZyDas. Puppies prior to Puppy_412 just would not connect or continously dropped off until Puppy_412.
[SO]
Until Puppy_412 I ran other distros, but always coming back to try the latest release of Puppy.
I'm a noob, but I enjoy learning from your post as well as from others on the forum. The foregoing discussion between yourself and Mike is enlighting, but some what daunting to a noob, such as I. However, I will hang tough and hope some of the advise and direction rubbs off.
Thanks, guys for the info.
I'll give it a try.
What I've learned is that, given an expert willing to expend
their time, you can install VNC on Puppy. Thank you again for that.
But I'm still not enlightened.
This is gonna sound like a tirade. My objective is to help
Linux get better. I'm gonna mention Windows. Do not get
alarmed. I don't want to get into an argument over which
is better or worse. No need for the stock response,
"If you like Windows so much, why don't you go back to it."
My objective is to help Linux navigate
to the point that it's usable by the masses.
I've been toying with Unix and it's variants for two decades.
When I get bored, I download the latest linux variant and try
to run it. I certainly haven't tried them all, but my first positive
experience was with Knoppix. Was the first distribution I
tried that actually detected much of my hardware and sorta
worked without delving into the bowels of the system.
I also found Centos5 interesting for the same reason.
And since it was compatible with lots of packages, it was
very useful.
My minimum criteria for a Linux distribution is as follows:
It boots from the CD and Detects all the mainstream
hardware on most of my systems.
It can properly setup the display system to run the window manager.
It can browse the web and transfer files to/from my
windows workgroup with both wired and wireless connections.
I can play an MP3 file.
It should do all the above with minimal intervention.
All configuration should be through a GUI. Linux
can't know my password, but it should be able to give me
a list of available wireless networks and computers on
that network to select from.
Again, should be able to ask me for what it can't detect.
Requiring me to know that I have to find and edit alsa.conf
to make my sound card work is NOTANOPTION!
And doing that every time I boot a live cd is just insane.
This is not rocket science or grand intuition. All you need do
is ask some simple questions.
What's the minimum requirement to keep a new user interested
long enough to figure out the more complex stuff? The above
is my minimum list.
What percentage of new users would like to play music?
I claim it's "LOTS".
What percentage of new linux users wanting network access
have a windows network? I claim it's 100%.
What percentage of new linux users want to surf the web?
I claim another 100%.
Any distribution that fails the above test goes straight
into the "disks to be erased" pile. Anything I learn about one
distribution is unlikely to help me much with the next one.
I have no need to learn the different details of a bunch
of distributions that "almost work". The basic concepts
are the same, but the differences in the details are maddening
and UNNECESSARY. PICK SOMETHING AND STICK WITH IT!!!
I got interested in Puppy because of its ability to remaster
itself onto a CD. Most live linux distributions are fixed.
You need configuration information, but there's no way to save it.
No, I don't want a persistent file on the HD, cause it may not
be my system I'm running on. Puppy solves this problem nicely.
I have a CD for each system that's configured for that system.
It boots and just runs. NICE!! If there are different
configurations, I can fix that up and remaster the CD to run
on THAT system without reloading and reconfiguring everything
else.
For what it does, I judge Puppy to be the best all-around
distribution for the new user. You insert the CD, press the
on button and it just works. That's an amazing accomplishment
for a linux distribution.
But they dropped the ball on adding new stuff.
Bash windows all you want, but you gotta give them kudos
for compatibility.
I've got software written for windows 3.1. In Vista, I click setup
and it installs and runs. Ditto for a lot of hardware drivers.
Yes, there are annoying exceptions. I've got a closet full of
very nice Intel webcams that won't work past XP.
This happens for one reason. Someone made it a priority.
Microsoft decided it would be useful to run legacy applications.
Hardware vendors made some attempts to keep drivers
working. Ditto for software patches. Yes, at some point,
it breaks down, but you gotta try...
Windows is a moving target, but it's only one target.
Linux is a plethora of moving targets.
If you're gonna create a linux distribution, you need to make
it trivial to install new hardware and software.
That means, click here and wait for the icon to show up on
your desktop. If I ever encounter the word "recompile",
I turn off the power and "frisbee" the CD into the recycle pile
with prejudice.
There are robust and available software package distributions.
Pick one and use it. Say you pick .rpm. The package installer
that uses .rpm files knows how to install itself and the required
dependencies to make it work. If your linux distribution moves
stuff, you should be able to make an installer that moves
stuff where you want it and fixes up the links. If you leave
stuff out, the package installer should be able to figure out
what's missing and FIX IT. A package cannot assume what's
present on the current system. It MUST VERIFY that a compatible
support file exists and install it if not.
Which brings me to the main point...
The linux community needs to get together and decide on a
hardware/software support/installation format/process.
If your linux distribution is deviant, you should write all the
conversion packages required to install the compliant hardware/software
package distribution format automagically, without user
intervention or understanding.
Arguing over "whose is bigger" doesn't solve anything.
A sub-optimal universal system that works is FAR
superior to a "better" one that I can't use.
Remember, users don't care about the politics.
They just want it to work. The only thing I want to
know about VNC is which link to click to make it install
and work. Windows can do it...so can linux...
and it does on many linux distributions...and it could
on puppy if anybody
cared enough to make it happen.
Way too much "reinventing the wheel" in the linux community.
Just to be clear...I like Puppy A LOT! I just wish I could
add software packages to it.
mike
I'll give it a try.
What I've learned is that, given an expert willing to expend
their time, you can install VNC on Puppy. Thank you again for that.
But I'm still not enlightened.
This is gonna sound like a tirade. My objective is to help
Linux get better. I'm gonna mention Windows. Do not get
alarmed. I don't want to get into an argument over which
is better or worse. No need for the stock response,
"If you like Windows so much, why don't you go back to it."
My objective is to help Linux navigate
to the point that it's usable by the masses.
I've been toying with Unix and it's variants for two decades.
When I get bored, I download the latest linux variant and try
to run it. I certainly haven't tried them all, but my first positive
experience was with Knoppix. Was the first distribution I
tried that actually detected much of my hardware and sorta
worked without delving into the bowels of the system.
I also found Centos5 interesting for the same reason.
And since it was compatible with lots of packages, it was
very useful.
My minimum criteria for a Linux distribution is as follows:
It boots from the CD and Detects all the mainstream
hardware on most of my systems.
It can properly setup the display system to run the window manager.
It can browse the web and transfer files to/from my
windows workgroup with both wired and wireless connections.
I can play an MP3 file.
It should do all the above with minimal intervention.
All configuration should be through a GUI. Linux
can't know my password, but it should be able to give me
a list of available wireless networks and computers on
that network to select from.
Again, should be able to ask me for what it can't detect.
Requiring me to know that I have to find and edit alsa.conf
to make my sound card work is NOTANOPTION!
And doing that every time I boot a live cd is just insane.
This is not rocket science or grand intuition. All you need do
is ask some simple questions.
What's the minimum requirement to keep a new user interested
long enough to figure out the more complex stuff? The above
is my minimum list.
What percentage of new users would like to play music?
I claim it's "LOTS".
What percentage of new linux users wanting network access
have a windows network? I claim it's 100%.
What percentage of new linux users want to surf the web?
I claim another 100%.
Any distribution that fails the above test goes straight
into the "disks to be erased" pile. Anything I learn about one
distribution is unlikely to help me much with the next one.
I have no need to learn the different details of a bunch
of distributions that "almost work". The basic concepts
are the same, but the differences in the details are maddening
and UNNECESSARY. PICK SOMETHING AND STICK WITH IT!!!
I got interested in Puppy because of its ability to remaster
itself onto a CD. Most live linux distributions are fixed.
You need configuration information, but there's no way to save it.
No, I don't want a persistent file on the HD, cause it may not
be my system I'm running on. Puppy solves this problem nicely.
I have a CD for each system that's configured for that system.
It boots and just runs. NICE!! If there are different
configurations, I can fix that up and remaster the CD to run
on THAT system without reloading and reconfiguring everything
else.
For what it does, I judge Puppy to be the best all-around
distribution for the new user. You insert the CD, press the
on button and it just works. That's an amazing accomplishment
for a linux distribution.
But they dropped the ball on adding new stuff.
Bash windows all you want, but you gotta give them kudos
for compatibility.
I've got software written for windows 3.1. In Vista, I click setup
and it installs and runs. Ditto for a lot of hardware drivers.
Yes, there are annoying exceptions. I've got a closet full of
very nice Intel webcams that won't work past XP.
This happens for one reason. Someone made it a priority.
Microsoft decided it would be useful to run legacy applications.
Hardware vendors made some attempts to keep drivers
working. Ditto for software patches. Yes, at some point,
it breaks down, but you gotta try...
Windows is a moving target, but it's only one target.
Linux is a plethora of moving targets.
If you're gonna create a linux distribution, you need to make
it trivial to install new hardware and software.
That means, click here and wait for the icon to show up on
your desktop. If I ever encounter the word "recompile",
I turn off the power and "frisbee" the CD into the recycle pile
with prejudice.
There are robust and available software package distributions.
Pick one and use it. Say you pick .rpm. The package installer
that uses .rpm files knows how to install itself and the required
dependencies to make it work. If your linux distribution moves
stuff, you should be able to make an installer that moves
stuff where you want it and fixes up the links. If you leave
stuff out, the package installer should be able to figure out
what's missing and FIX IT. A package cannot assume what's
present on the current system. It MUST VERIFY that a compatible
support file exists and install it if not.
Which brings me to the main point...
The linux community needs to get together and decide on a
hardware/software support/installation format/process.
If your linux distribution is deviant, you should write all the
conversion packages required to install the compliant hardware/software
package distribution format automagically, without user
intervention or understanding.
Arguing over "whose is bigger" doesn't solve anything.
A sub-optimal universal system that works is FAR
superior to a "better" one that I can't use.
Remember, users don't care about the politics.
They just want it to work. The only thing I want to
know about VNC is which link to click to make it install
and work. Windows can do it...so can linux...
and it does on many linux distributions...and it could
on puppy if anybody
cared enough to make it happen.
Way too much "reinventing the wheel" in the linux community.
Just to be clear...I like Puppy A LOT! I just wish I could
add software packages to it.
mike
Me Too!
Mike, here - ("spamme0") - has calmly expressed most of the concerns I have with Puppy in general and the Linux development community in particular.
For this reason alone, I'm positively hopeful for linux to marginalize (if not over-run) Windows and restore in to it's rightful place as Just Another Operating System.spamme0 wrote:My objective is to help Linux navigate to the point that it's usable by the masses.
This is really no more arcane than MS-DOS back in the 80's, but today's consumers - this is the audience Windows is targeted for - are no longer willing to do this.spamme0 wrote:Requiring me to know that I have to find and edit alsa.conf to make my sound card work is NOTANOPTION!
This is what I LOVED about Puppy: it just worked! And I think this is something the linux community can do to beat M$ at their own game. But to do this, ...spamme0 wrote: For what it does, I judge Puppy to be the best all-around distribution for the new user. You insert the CD, press the on button and it just works. That's an amazing accomplishment for a linux distribution.
... and this is why Windows (still) has the largest market share.spamme0 wrote: ... you need to make it trivial to install new hardware and software. That means, click here and wait for the icon to show up on your desktop. If I ever encounter the word "recompile", I turn off the power and "frisbee" the CD into the recycle pile with prejudice.
Just to be clear...I like Puppy A LOT! - just like Mike. I hope Mike's tirade is taken not as an indictment but as a challenge.spamme0 wrote:A sub-optimal universal system that works is FAR
superior to a "better" one that I can't use.
-
Bruce B
Sure, there might be consumers.reidserv wrote: This is really no more arcane than MS-DOS back in the 80's, but today's consumers - this is the audience Windows is targeted for - are no longer willing to do this.
Where is the business? Where is the business model?
FOSS is a software development model. In the majority of cases the end goal is the software.
The Puppy development team is coming out with yet another version? Why would they do that?
Answer: For the sake of the software, the goal is the software and the reward contained therein.
A Linux distribution is a hodgepodge of many FOSS projects glued together in such a way that it actually works well. (that's an ideal anyway)
I guess Linus' goal from back in 1991 was being a key player in giving us a wonderful Unix type operating system. I think his goal was spot on.
If he wanted to give us a Microsoft type operating system, he missed the train.
If Linus missed getting on the Microsoft train, and someone gets on the FOSS train, they might not be on the train right for them.
-------------------------------------
Making a business on FOSS, Unification, and Standards
A few CEO and attorneys get together. The decide everyone is OK and they make a deal to cooperate, share technology and all. How about let's do . . .
. . . UNITED LINUX (done)
Ransom Love, CEO of Caldera seems the kind of guy we can get along with. How can we know he'll 'leave' and Darl McBride won't come in demanding, "It's mine, mine, all mine. It is a violation of my IP. I get control, and billions and billions of dollars"
How about Ray Noorda? I think I could bet he isn't going to cut a deal with Microsoft in an attempt to gain an edge over other people using FOSS in the enterprise.
How can I know Ray won't die? Not that he was involved in United Linux, but he was respected before he died.
I can I know a new Novell CEO won't come in who could care less about the founder or if his actions cause him to roll in his grave?
How can I know a top Linux Distributor in our sweet little union, say SuSE for example, won't sell out to someone who will cut a deal with Microsoft?
Caldera Linux lawsuits against us are still pending.
Suse Linux plays its game and FOSS has to come up with a new license in self protection.
=================================
This is Mike's main point?
The same Mike who in the same post said . . .Mike wrote:Which brings me to the main point...
The linux community needs to get together and decide on a hardware/software support/installation format/process.
If your linux distribution is deviant, you should write all the conversion packages required to install the compliant hardware/software package distribution format automagically, without user intervention or understanding.
Welcome to reality, I think your wish has been granted in good faith. How many United Linux's do you want?Mike wrote:Way too much "reinventing the wheel" in the linux community.
==================================
-
Bruce B
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
The philosophy is one of freedom. By all means people can use it in their military equipment as well as their hospitals.
It might be within one's purpose to make things very user friendly and convenient.
It might be within one's purpose to make things wickedly difficult and nearly impossible.
A Story About Inconvenient Unix Computers
Have your credentials with you and show them at the appropriate check points.
Pass three points and come to a door. Everyone in the area doesn't necessarily know what is behind the door. It is not necessary for them to know.
If you made it to the third check point, you have the smarts to be not be openly curious about anything.
The door is not a check point, it is merely a locked door to a room with computers. Some of the computers just sit in a rack. No mouse, no monitor, no keyboard, no floppy drive, no sound card, no speakers, no cdrom, no package management system for sure.
Plug in a spare keyboard, grab an extension cord from a monitor already setup in the room, plug it in, and get to work.
No X, just a TUI. The input device is a keyboard. If you know the admin password and you do, a keyboard is all you need.
-----------------------------
How can 'user convenience' can be mandated or injected into FOSS without treading on Freedom 0 ?
The philosophy is one of freedom. By all means people can use it in their military equipment as well as their hospitals.
It might be within one's purpose to make things very user friendly and convenient.
It might be within one's purpose to make things wickedly difficult and nearly impossible.
A Story About Inconvenient Unix Computers
Have your credentials with you and show them at the appropriate check points.
Pass three points and come to a door. Everyone in the area doesn't necessarily know what is behind the door. It is not necessary for them to know.
If you made it to the third check point, you have the smarts to be not be openly curious about anything.
The door is not a check point, it is merely a locked door to a room with computers. Some of the computers just sit in a rack. No mouse, no monitor, no keyboard, no floppy drive, no sound card, no speakers, no cdrom, no package management system for sure.
Plug in a spare keyboard, grab an extension cord from a monitor already setup in the room, plug it in, and get to work.
No X, just a TUI. The input device is a keyboard. If you know the admin password and you do, a keyboard is all you need.
-----------------------------
How can 'user convenience' can be mandated or injected into FOSS without treading on Freedom 0 ?
-
Bruce B
Where did the get them?Mike wrote:I also found Centos5 interesting for the same reason. And since it was compatible with lots of packages, it was very useful.
An exception would be CentOS of course. It didn't invent a wheel or reinvent one. For lack of better words, CentOS 'borrowed' RedHat Enterprise Edition's wheel - all the wheels.Mike wrote:Way too much "reinventing the wheel" in the linux community.
I do not expect package management innovation from CentOS. I don't expect them to be working on the wheel either. Why would they?
-
Bruce B
I think the challenge is learning fundamental file management skills. Given the fact that I posted the fix, I think that puts me in a position to state: "File management skill is what made it easy."reidserv wrote:Just to be clear...I like Puppy A LOT! - just like Mike. I hope Mike's tirade is taken not as an indictment but as a challenge.
-
Jim Isbell
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Mon 05 Nov 2007, 16:47
So the consensus is, "Linux is a Geek system, others should use Windoze?"
OK, I wasnt in at the beginning to make the rules, so I wont complain about them, but if it were put to a vote, I would vote for it to be otherwise.
I like the convenience of Uncle Bills stuff, but despise his monopoly. I wish Linux were more like his stuff in many ways, but NOT if it requires it to be a monopoly to be that way. My goal would be to have a level playing field for ALL OSs so that a real choice existed. If Linux will not be more like Windoze in convenience, then that level playing field will never exist. In that case I cant fault Uncle Bill because he is just giving the masses what they want and Linux is not.....But I can still despise him ....
I use Freespire and Puppy because they dont crash. Puppy more so than Freespire. Until XP there wasnt an MS system that didnt crash. XP works...all the time.....but I don't want to contribute to the monopoly nor do I want to pay ransom for every change, especially not knowing if it is a positive change in advance. I was a victim of 2000 and I will never forgive them for stealing my $150 and the attitude when I complained.
OK, I wasnt in at the beginning to make the rules, so I wont complain about them, but if it were put to a vote, I would vote for it to be otherwise.
I like the convenience of Uncle Bills stuff, but despise his monopoly. I wish Linux were more like his stuff in many ways, but NOT if it requires it to be a monopoly to be that way. My goal would be to have a level playing field for ALL OSs so that a real choice existed. If Linux will not be more like Windoze in convenience, then that level playing field will never exist. In that case I cant fault Uncle Bill because he is just giving the masses what they want and Linux is not.....But I can still despise him ....
I use Freespire and Puppy because they dont crash. Puppy more so than Freespire. Until XP there wasnt an MS system that didnt crash. XP works...all the time.....but I don't want to contribute to the monopoly nor do I want to pay ransom for every change, especially not knowing if it is a positive change in advance. I was a victim of 2000 and I will never forgive them for stealing my $150 and the attitude when I complained.
-
Jim Isbell
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Mon 05 Nov 2007, 16:47
I got here searching for the same solution that the original poster was looking for. And I am happy to say, this solution worked and I now have access to my telephone server. Now if there was a way to put an Icon on the desktop instead of having to use the console, I would be in hog heaven!!!
Thanks for the solution and a spirited discussion in philosophy.
Thanks for the solution and a spirited discussion in philosophy.