anikin wrote:jamesbond,
Does FatDog have these or similar pinging scripts? If it does, what destinations do they ping and when?
Haha, I know where you're aiming at
Here's my answer which I think you already guess (I will bold it so it is easy for others to see):
No pinging scripts in Fatdog, as far as I can recall.
But before you say "
Look, I rest my case - even Mr. Bond does not walk his talk - so why should we listen to his trash talking!", please consider this: A lot of other stuff in Puppy are also missing in Fatdog. No comprehensive FirstRun (in fact, I resisted this for years). No built-in Samba4. Fatdog's on-the-fly SFS loader is much simplified and spartan. Different choices of applications, window managers. Different network manager (wpa-gui). Different OS installers (not PUI). Fatdog runs in frugal only. Initrd is totally re-written; totally different command line parameters. Core applications are re-written too. And many others.
All these lead to this:
Fatdog's target audience is different from Puppy. And in fact, if you've been in Fatdog thread long enough, you'll see people complain that Fatdog is not user-friendly; well at least not as friendly as Puppy. Some potential Fatdog users were turned off because of these convenient features that they know and love from Puppy are missing (I'm not talking specifically about the pinging, but Puppy features in general). This is not my guess: there are explicit posts comparing Fatdog to Lupu and the author decided to go with Lupu for that reason.
But I have no problem with that, because, as written in its blurb:
fatdog wrote:Fatdog64 Linux is a small yet versatile 64-bit multi-user Linux distribution. Originally created as a "fatter" (=more built-in applications) derivative of Puppy Linux, Fatdog has grown to become an independent, mature 64-bit Linux distribution while still keeping true to Puppy Linux spirit: small, fast and efficient.
As you can see, "user-friendly" or "for Windows-refugee" is not mentioned, as Fatdog was never specifically targeted for those. When Fatdog first went 64-bit in 2009, its target system was a high-end enough system that it is unlikely to become the OS of choice for those who are just trying to dip their foot in the Linux waters using secondary or older machines.
___________________________________________
Puppy on the other hand is a completely different beast.
Puppy *is* meant to be the OS of choice for "Windows-refugee"; it is targeted towards users who are long-time Windows users but their machines are left behind by newer Windows that they don't have a choice other than to migrate to a different OS. This kind of use case calls for
priority in user-friendliness and ease-of-use. As an example, one of Puppy's specialty is is "wizards"; to help beginners and newbies climb comfortably through the steep learning-curve of Unix-like OS. It attempts to help the user as much as possible; trying to avoid situations that a beginner may encounter, but can't solve (e.g: can't connect to the Internet, and suggestion is to "search google" --- well, if you can't connect to the Internet, how can you google???, etc).
I am not Puppy builder. There is a reason for that: other than the fact that I don't have time to juggle too many projects; I also actively avoid to become a Puppy builder for a simple reason: I have a strong bias for Fatdog. If you let me drive Puppy development, it will at the end turn into a Fatdog
It would be horrible thing if it ever happens, don't you agree?
That being said, I have a lot of respect for Puppy builders - both independent builders and those who have chosen to pool their efforts at Woof-CE; both full-fledged Puppy builders or people who contribute packages, patches, apps, translations, wallpapers, icons, github gatekeepers, new radical ideas, infrastructure providers (repos, websites, downloads), website admins, etc (you know who you are). They keep Puppy alive, and grow, sometimes taken unexpected path. I don't have to agree with or even like their decisions, but I retain my respect: I was once Puppy user too; and I experience firsthand the diversity of ideas that lays scattered around Puppy root (in fact, Fatdog is but one of the outgrowths).
With that, I can understand the motivation behind the inclusion of the pinging and connection testing etc that goes into Woof-CE; and thus my repeated conclusion - decisions have to be made, and in the end we can't make everybody happy. Some decisions that kirk and I made for Fatdog definitely makes some users unhappy and drives them away.
______________________________________
If you read all my posts in this thread, all I did was to try to explain why certain actions are done they way they are - from my arm's length view of an observer. Not a Puppy builder myself, I can never say it should or should not be done. That's up to the developers, the builders, those who do the actual heavy-lifting, who spend hours debugging and fixing and perfecting and polishing the OS; and it is their choice to either listen to me, to you, to someone else, or to nobody at all.
Let me give you an example. You may or may not be aware of my effort to re-juvenate Woof-CE by creating a new experimental branch called "woof-next" last year. The main radical idea in this branch are two folds:
a) you can build puppy in minutes instead of hours (at that time - the discrepancy in duration has since been reduced thanks to Iguleder's work)
b) it uses the parent distro's native package manager instead of PPM.
==> both addressing the two most commonly aired issue about Woof-CE and Puppy at that time.
I aired the idea, but there were no takers.
So what the heck, I said to myself. I started coding it myself, and when it's usable, I forked off "testing" branch of Woof-CE and created the "woof-next" branch. I brought it up to a working state (=boot to graphical desktop and wired networking), but I stopped there - because I don't want to become a Puppy builder for reasons I already said above. I hoped and expected seasoned and not-so-seasoned Puppy builders to take the torch from me and grow it to the point that it could build *real* Puppy.
It did not happen.
Was I disappointed? Yes.
Was I discouraged? No.
Will I do it again if I feel it is needed? Of course.
So what did I do? I retired the project.
If suddenly people are interested in woof-next, will I resume the project? Well why not.
That is just the nature of community development. Sometimes things don't turn out the way we want. I obviously think my woof-next idea is better than the current way of Puppy development
but I'm not doing the thinking for 01micko or iguleder or mavrothal etc - they all have different ideas of what's best for Puppy; based on their view of the world and based on feedback they hear from here. They can think too, and they are allowed to hold a different opinion from mine - and the Puppy they produce reflects their consideration.
If I were you, and I am trying to change direction of Puppy's development, I will attempt to convince these people why I should be heard and why my idea is worth considering. I may even submit patches and codes and apps. But again, at the end of day, despite all my efforts, it could be that they decide to do something against my recommendation or suggestion or requests; because - well, decisions to be made - because I'm not the only one with visions and I'm not the only one affected if Puppy direction changes.
A community development is one of a compromise - and a compromise can go both ways. Don't be discouraged when it seems that your suggestion goes nowhere. Chances are, with a community as diverse as Puppy, there will be one who listens and shares your concern/goals; and will produce a puplet that is close to your needs. I've recommended Puli in my previous post; it looks like it is a very privacy- and security- oriented Puppy that may be suitable for you. Will its features ever go to mainstream Puppy? I doubt it - but it isn't necessary for Puli to be useful.
And, that, my friend, is the beauty of Puppy Linux; and why we want to keep it alive for all to share and enjoy.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]