Page 13 of 19

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 07:17
by aus9
So what would the advantages be of an Ubuntu based Porteus over arch?
Actually I think the question should be more vague and say based over any other distro?

And here the plot thickens.

generally we agree that the reasons to change away from Slackware are threefold or more?
1) lack of ready made packages off the shelf so a newbie says I want X and can get it
------so distros based not on Slackware feature strongly here such as Debian Ubuntu etc

2) Difficulty in maintaining the base
Has many causes of which at least one relates to what is commonly called dependency issues.

Below is just a hypothetical example can be true quite often
--if upstream maintainer for (say) glibc updates and downstream distro maintainer updates but other downstream maintainers don't update there can be breakage for some software

Debian has a stable, testing and unstable branch. "Most" experienced Debian users tend to opt for either a mix of stable and testing or go whole hog and go unstable.
unstable is of course a rolling release.

*Ubuntu is mainly a type of Debian stable distro.

3) An off-shoot of this chat is those wanting less frequent updates would want a base that is NOT rolling. But then suffer some pain just as some Debian software might take 2 years to get from unstable to stable.

I fall into the camp of wanting frequent updates and so don't really care how out-of-date the iso is, as long as on my hd install I can update it.

*Ubuntu offers Long Term Support releases versus short term with the obvious comment that LTS generally has less frequent updates and are mainly security related rather than feature related. Rolling releases are generally moving targets so tend to have few security updates and nearly all are feature updates (software upsteam updates)

4) Flogging a dead horse? some people appear to believe if a distro has a certain init style they won't use it.

I am not sure if that is any clearer but let me digress into our modules talk.

Lets say a person one year ago downloaded and accepted combined modules to allow them to get software X.
Lets pretend today they want new software Y and accept combined modules.
--lets pretend that X has old dependencies and Y has new dependencies for sofware called Z.

This can lead to a new dependency issue. In some ways me thinks it might be better not to combine any modules. But I firmly believe we will have more issues of this type if we choose a distro with a rolling release base.

cheers

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 11:48
by fullmoonremix
Salutations... :good:
So what would the advantages be of an Ubuntu based Porteus over arch?
There are none because the user makes that determination.
Which is why... :evil: "one ring should rule them all".

If every user base is covered (including ARM which is the future @ least for supercomputing)
then Porteus becomes the default. (Of course... that is provided systemd is thrown under the bus).

Best Regards... :beer:

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 14:59
by dimx
brokenman wrote: So what would the advantages be of an Ubuntu based Porteus over arch? I've never used ubuntu.
- Installed on millions of desktop pc's. Arguably has the largest user base (more so if also counting derivatives like Mint). Achieves high quality of desktop packages, due to lots of feedback/bug reports from users. It is good to leverage this amount of maintenance.
- LTS version is very stable and has backports repo, in case user opts for more recent/potentially buggy packages.
- PPA's: Personal package archives: there are lots of them, and many are very high quality for getting unsupported packages. Users never need to compile/recompile packages themselves.
- Proprietary vendors support (as opposed to Debian)
- Good googlability for solving common issues from official forums.
What about disadvantages?
- The upcoming LTS (16.04) will be using systemd, (see my *big* post above for more details).
- Preinstalled bloat (automatic checking for updates, crash reporter, software center - easily uninstallable/replaceable with Porteus specific stuff - after the uninstallation of those, my Arch's XFCE is identical with Xubuntu's, of course I have tuned both in the same way).
- Lots of derivatives. This is a consequence of high quality desktop packages + lots of ppa's, lots of ppl want a less bugs + lots of readily-available software for their respins. Many liveCD's using Ubuntu base? Yes. Many of those using aufs/modules the way Porteus does? None. (Again, see my big post for what IMHO are Porteus' defining characteristics)

Alternatives:
- Debian. Stable. Not as user-friendly. Mixing unstable/testing with stable not always a good idea.
- CentOS. Super-stable 10-year support cycle. Not very desktop-oriented.
- Fedora, OpenSUSE, Gentoo - don't know haven't used.
- Arch, if aiming for more experienced user base/community.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 15:32
by fanthom
So what would the advantages be of an Ubuntu based Porteus over arch?
Good points mentioned already - just to add few:
- Ubuntu LST version is released every two years which is a good thing IMO. Point releases for LST brings updated kernel and Xorg stack.
- every Ubuntu version is released according to schedule so you could plan things
- maintenance point of view: rolling release distros requires more testing to avoid breakage (ABI/API changes)
- commercial point of view: companies would trust Ubuntu LST (as it runs on many servers and probably even supercomputers) more than Arch or Manjaro (i know Desktop edition aims for regular users more than companies but still)

Just my two cents.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 18:41
by dimx
- Ubuntu LST version is released every two years which is a good thing IMO. Point releases for LST brings updated kernel and Xorg stack.
Small addition: The original LTS kernel get support for the whole 5-year lifecycle. Additionally, new kernel package (tagged appropriately) is released for LTS version every 6-months (point releases as was mentioned) and supported for 9 months.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 19:24
by Jack
I ran Mint Linux for awhile and the only way it ran good was you have to install it. If you ran it live it was slow or lockup and it was 1.4gb in size. And to install a program you pick it from a list but they do have a lot to pick from. So If we change Porteus (Slackware) it should be Arch Linux. That my 0.02cents. And that all I have to say about it.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 19:54
by Bogomips
brokenman wrote: When I look at the livecd operating systems there are many for Ubuntu, but not so many for arch.
Quite a few of these are not so alive, as they claim to be. Seem to be install ISOs with live taster. Mint up to 16 worked ok for me. Was able to install two or three packages every session and get my work done. At session start would have:

Code: Select all

Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/cow            438M   36M  402M   9% /
But come Mint 17, had to install nvidia driver. So start off in nomode, install driver, after which left with around 120MB cow, making it tricky to install anything else. Casting around, looking at all these pseudo live systems, finally stumbled upon Porteus.

With Ubuntu there is also the matter of negotiating with Canonical for use of their repos (Mint had to), although suppose for small fry may not be an issue.

Then there is a twin of Porteus, MagOS (d.o.b. somewhat pre 2009) , which came to hear about in Russian section of forum. The wiki on MagOS also mentions in the same breath:
Porteus
Puppy Linux
SliTaz
Slax

Downloaded iso and burnt to DVD, but not been able to get through MagOS specific part after live scripts finished with, for both 64 and 32 bit isos, during boot process. Probably have more success going from a downloaded tar ball. Anyway there is a 64bit version and a 32 bit one but based on different Rosas:
1. 2014.64 (Rosa Desktop Fresh 64bit)
2. 2014red (Rosa Enterprise Desktop 32bit)
on timescale:
• 2015-12-12: Distribution Release: ROSA R6 "Desktop Fresh LXQt"
• 2015-07-25: Distribution Release: ROSA R6 "Desktop Fresh"
• 2014-12-25: Distribution Release: ROSA R5 "Desktop Fresh"
• 2014-10-09: Distribution Release: ROSA R4 "Desktop Fresh"
• 2014-02-01: Distribution Release: ROSA 2012 R2 "Desktop Fresh GNOME"
• 2013-12-30: Distribution Release: ROSA 2012 R2 "Desktop Fresh LXDE"
• 2013-12-06: Distribution Release: ROSA 2012 R2 "Desktop Fresh"
• 2013-06-20: Distribution Release: ROSA 2012 R1 "Desktop Fresh LXDE"
• 2013-06-09: Distribution Release: ROSA 2012 R1 "Desktop Fresh"
• 2013-04-18: Distribution Release: ROSA 2012 RP2 "Enterprise Desktop"
The 'Fresh' ones are reckoned to be more suited to domestic use, and yes they all seem to have systemd. :unknown:

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 20:09
by tome
It could be so that after some time of searching and checking possible base distros, the answer for the best one would be Slackware (new base -> new problems). Searching for the best base distro is a waste of time, because the best one for all doesn't exist, as we can see. Some interesting features has for example Gobolinux - modular file hierarchy, own boot system initialization procedure and the "Compile" system similar to Gentoo's Portage system (easy maintenance).
I think, priority should have the best base distro for devs and lack of ready made packages is over-exaggerated problem. Make it good for you, and it will be good for those who follow your ideas.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 20:20
by Bogomips
tome wrote:It could be so that after some time of searching and checking possible base distros, the answer for the best one would be Slackware (new base -> new problems).
Echoed my very thoughts. (Seem to have come full circle) :D

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 21:28
by brokenman
lack of ready made packages is over-exaggerated problem
In my opinion it's not. We have seen time and again the main complaint about slackware is the lack of packages. The best base for me is the one that minimizes my workload. USM is a part of tht workload. In the last 3 weeks I have battled with getting three apps to run on slackware that took me 5 seconds to get running on arch.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 21:29
by philanc
+1 for using Ubuntu LTS as a base.

As aus9 explained well in his recent post, a rolling distro might not be the best/easiest fit for the quaterly update model evoked by brokenman.

Ubuntu, and even the so-called "lightweight" Lubuntu are certainly too bloated for a lean Porteus.

If Ubuntu LTS is considered as a base, I would suggest starting with Ubuntu Core
(see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Core ).

Ubuntu Core is a good set of common libraries and minimal CLI environment -- as they say, "enough to start adding packages with apt-get".

Just to get an idea of size and frequency of updates: The last U. Core LTS, 14.04.3 tar.gz was 63MB. U Core 14.04 was updated 3 times after the initial version in April 2014. Last update was in Aug 2015.

see: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-core/r ... 4/release/

and the list of packages/versions in the last nightly for the future Ubuntu Core 16.04 LTS:
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-core/d ... 4.manifest

HTH

Phil

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 21:42
by roadie
Using a rolling distro doesn't mean you have to upgrade the base to the latest release. It can be upgraded to a snapshot from a month earlier...well tested and bugs fixed. And if there are problems, just don't upgrade until the problems are fixed.

Really, I think the ones who want the latest and greatest are going to do it themselves anyway, and thats fine as long as they understand there is no support for doing that....except from the Arch or Ubuntu forums.

Why is it that I want to gag when I have to type Ubuntu?

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 22:32
by philanc
Why is it that I want to gag when I have to type Ubuntu?
Ubuntu: 1.0 GB
Ubuntu Core: 63 MB

Maybe what is making you gag is somewhere in the 937 other MB :)

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 06 Jan 2016, 22:35
by roadie
philanc wrote:
Why is it that I want to gag when I have to type Ubuntu?
Ubuntu: 1.0 GB
Ubuntu Core: 63 MB

Maybe what is making you gag is somewhere in the 937 other MB :)

Yup, that could be part of it.

Re: The future of Porteus

Posted: 07 Jan 2016, 00:05
by aus9
well let me be another broken record.

Lets pretend we have a base that is a rolling release and 2 members who choose to combine/merge modules both to get a certain piece of software...lets name it VLC

Member one did their module creation one month ago
Member two did theirs today.

Member one then adds a new module for a different piece of software lets call it Gimp.
(and I am making this up)
reboots and the dependencies of Gimp need software version 2 but older module loads last and over-writes software verstion 2 back to 1.
result, gimp no longer works.

IMHO we need to consider not just the rolling release nature of any base but also whether miodule merging actually makes it easier for members.

Is that clearer?