Just out of curiosity, what would be the advantage of puppy over something like dsl or feather?

Have not worked with Feather Linux so these comments apply only to my minimal working with DSL vs. Puppy.

Available applications from the distro as an non modified or added to ISO - until recently DSL has held to a strict 50MB limit on size and as a result doesn't come "out of the box" with the same variety of applications that Puppy linux starts out with. Add in what is to me an easier more intuitive package management and save file arrangements and you have why I choose to go with Puppy. This may change as I'm told that the folks at DSL are looking at an increase in size on at least one version of that distro, guess we'll have to wait and see what comes of it. For me at this point Puppy is definitely the better distro for my purposes.

i do not have used the other.
but suse, ubuntu, redhat and all the windows.
now use puppy2 and only some little bugs after the harddiskinstall make it ' not yet' perfect.
fast, for a newby maybe not but with some little experience easy to install.

than , it grows on you.
i am using puppy with much more pleasure on my P2 than my xp pro on the P4.
suse and others are just to heavy.

Puppy is quite nice. It is fast and compact. It will run on just about any thing, and perform admirably. I use it frequently, especially on old boxes. It is excellent for demonstrative purposes. I also like DSL and Knoppix...

----------

While running as a livecd you can compile apps if you download the devx file, even drivers/modules with the kernel source.

The whole file system is read/write due to Unionfs and all changes are stored in one file. The whole operation is transparent to the user, it just looks like the whole file system is R/W, it like using a regular linux distro installed on a harddrive, except it's faster.

If you want to loose all your changes and start over just delete the storage file (called pup_save.3fs) and reboot. Want a backup? Just make a compressed copy the pup_save file. Want to have different configurations? You can have several pup_save.3fs files, just rename them pup_save1.3fs and pup_save2.3fs etc.. When you boot Puppy will ask you which one you want to use.

Lots of apps in a very small package.

Try it!

I like Puppy Linux because it does pretty much all I need a compputer to do. Which isn't to say that DSL and Feather wouldn't, and I have tried both.

I guess what I'm saying is that I like Puppy Linux best.

However, the only way any one will get my last copy of Feather Linux is by prying it out of my cold dead fingers. There have been times when I've had to fix a [partition on my hard drive and Feather would read it whereas Puppy would not.

Trobin, regarding fixing parttions, Puppy 2.01 comes with Gparted and cfdisk among its collection of tools. If you discover something that Puppy 2.01 can't do and should, then Barry and the rest of us want to hear about it

The major feature that makes Puppy unique is that it loads itself completely into RAM. It doesn't even need the CD drive after that so you can use that for other apps.

My version of choice is 1.0.6.

There have been occasions where cfdisk in both Featjher and Puppy won't read the disk. Yet I am able to fix the problem by installing Feather Linux. Then I can install Puppy easily.

The word is "no holding back", I guess. The applications used in Puppy are the most recent versions. All efforts are done to achieve this, and to help users every which way possible.

well you make me say this.
that puppy has to act the same after a harddisk install as when running of cd.
running on cd, it sees usb drive's an i can mount them, after harddiskinstall both don't work.
shutting down with cd, pc turns really off, after harddisk install i have to use the button.

now i have destroyed my dsl router modem through a firmware update , i would like to use my old usb speedtouch modem, but i think puppy does not know this on

by the way staroffice 5 works fine with puppy ( i use this because it has a good dutch translation)

it turns out the 2.6 kernel in Puppy 2.0x has murdered burnisoc2cd and remasterpup2, also graveman for iso burn. This is because cdrecord has real problems with 2.6. I came up with a fix for burniso2cd, and for remasterpup2 to make it run in DAO when burning. By the way, this is a known problem, Schilling of cdrecord fame blames the kernel guys, they blame him.

Alas, though I can add files with K3b in Mandriva, after burning the iso as multisession, Puppy can't do it.

This is not true on all writers, my TEAC is one that is bad.

So, at this time, for rescue work where burning to CD might be relevant unless you are very lucky as to writer involved, better hang on to 1.0x with the 2.4 kernel.

I was working on a Graveman fix, but when Barry pointed out multisession might not work in DAO, I stopped. Graveman does everything with cdrecord.

I suspect cdrao can be made to run on burniso2cd, and remaster, but Graveman is written in French, and uses a lot of pointers and hidden library calls that I am not even going to try. (French is not a problem, but complex calls to libraries is.)

I am waiting to see what Barry does before I put more time in to this problem.

I do not consider DSl or Feather as competition as they are cut down Debian. Why not use Debian unless restricted . . . ? I would select Austrumi as far closer to Puppy.

The advantage is really ease of use. It gets easier to use with each release. Is especially suited to those used to Windows - which is most computer users. As an ex-windows user I thought Linux would be like Puppy. Simple. Fun. Easy. Powerful.

It is.

[quopte]I do not consider DSl or Feather as competition as they are cut down Debian. Why not use Debian unless restricted . . . ? I would select Austrumi as far closer to Puppy.[/quote]
In that they fill a need similar to that of Puppy Linux, I would consider them to be in competion. DSL has a fairly active user base, judging by the usage on their forum, while Feather seems to be dragging.