sunburnt wrote:I agree with amigo in that loading apps. into ram is a waste of ram space.
The Squash file takes ~1/3 the apps. size, and running it uses more ram.
Same with a swap, uses ram, slows the O.S. down, and works the H.D.
But to do without a swap a PC needs at least 1GB of ram ( arguably more ).
I always thought the config. files in one save and app. installs in another.
Mixing everything together is a mess and prone to save file corruption.
But if there`s a Linux partition, why have a save file? Use save directories.
Nothing will ever remove the need for backups. The thing I like about save files is to backup my entire configured system I just have to make a copy of 1 file. If my current setup gets nuked... copy a backup and I'm back to work. Done in 1 simple step. I make a weekly backup of my savefiles and purge them after 3 months. So I have no worry if the save file gets corrupted. Mixing everything together can be a mess if you're a looney and dont properly back up things. But thats less a problem with the system design and more problem of user lunacy. Mixing everything together in a save file (as frugal does) can be a MASSIVE blessing if you do keep proper backups. Besides putting everything in one save file makes dealing with multiple installs more manageable.
As for the ram thing. Realize that running in Ram is one of those Puppy features that attracts people. It's the main reason I came to puppy in the first place. And the reason I stick with it. I
want to run my entire OS from ram. Running from a disk is so 20th century.
The fact that puppy runs from RAM with such ease and uses savefiles is the reason I have not fully switched over to using Arch or Slackware exclusively.
Yes I understand that RAM is limited on some people systems. But herein lies the beauty of puppy. Its flexibility allows those with large amounts of RAM to run everything from there and have a blisteringly fast system. While those that do not, can go on their merry way the 'old fashioned tried and true way'.
crankypuss wrote:Okay, I am new here, but if you think Ubuntu has got package management right you are way mistaken imo.
+1
crankypuss wrote:Ubuntu 11.10 starts out by installing everything on the planet or close to it, we are talking *lots* of files that are just sitting there. And something, I've been told it's "metapackages", is causing additional ruckus.
For example there was a recent security update to "Vorbis". It's audio compression stuff which I don't use, so I figured just to remove it. That seems to be the only way to clean up a Ubuntu install, remove things you don't need as they are updated. Anyway to remove this Vorbis thing, it would also be necessary to remove half the system's guts, things like gnome-commander and various indicators that have nothing at all to do with audio compression.
Thats the problem with Ubuntu, it focuses so much on 'user simplicity' that the system suffers as a result. For a common user thats not too much of a problem, but for people that want things a certain way... its a headache.
crankypuss wrote:I also think that Puppy might be leaning too far in the direction of compression. The first step to having a small clean system is not compression, the first step is eliminating things that are unnecessary, *then* looking at compression.
Amen Brother.
crankypuss wrote:Before you go off imitating Ubuntu make sure you're going to like what you have when you get done.
I dont hate Ubuntu, but there are so many Ubuntu fanboys out there in the linux community, so many seem to think that the 'Ubuntu way' is the best way.
crankypuss wrote:But I am seeing things from my own viewpoint. A little over two months ago I was stuck on Windows. I started into Linux with Ubuntu and for all its flaws it does work. I'm looking for a better base though, something I can take in what might be another direction, something modular that starts small with just basic functions that can then be added to.
You might like the way Arch does package management. Granted its command line work intimidates some people, but its a very controllable system. You install what you want when you want. If there are optional dependencies that are not needed but you may want, it'll even let you know what they are. Then you make the decision on if you want to install them. It wont install them by default. It will install what you told it to install, and when its done, it'll then let you know there are other options if you care. It doesnt give you the option before so that you dont bloat your system by hammering the 'y' answer during an install.
If I understand what you're looking for out of Linux, Puppy may work out great for you. With its SFS system you can load optional packages when you need them, and have a solid slim core system thats flexible enough to go wherever you need it, as long as you have the willingness to tinker to get it the way you want it.