What kind of person will flame someone because he is not using a 'true' Linux filesystem?

And not a 'true' Linux user agent? Astrogeek and TimothyMiller, you indeed seem to be regrettably narrow minded. But I advice you to leave people do as they decide and prefer to do.

Would you be so kind to go and harass someone else, who already knows you, and knows how to take your behaviour.

1 members found this post helpful.

Sigh...

By the way nobody has to prove or show to you that he is not a pretender but a "true" Linux user.

Because your view or judgment is - of course - entirely irrelevant for anyone for that matter.

Well, given that he's only been here a few days, and he's already contributed some interesting information on using Puppy Linux on FAT devices (which was certainly news to me) and generated some interesting debate on the use of Linux on SSDs, you should wait slightly longer before getting your pitchforks and flaming torches out?

Who's getting pitchforks. I'm just saying I have my doubts.

As to puppy, it originally REQUIRED a fat device, and couldn't be installed on native linux filesystems. Remember that from when it first came out and I used to use it.

Seriously? Wow. How did that equate to file attributes and so on - were the limitations noticeable, or did Puppy work round them by emulating a POSIX filesystem e.g. by storing additional attributes connected to each file?

I like the tho obviously should be unless some block signatures or posters like touchy babies?

My ($10) Kindle Fire HD has EXT4. If I really cared about nike swoops I could put a less current: http://www.webapps-online.com/online...59/cyanogenmod to see what icon may get?

Attached Thumbnails

 

That's a good question, and I haven't the foggiest anymore. I never took a huge liking to Puppy, as I'm actually a big fan of "traditional" installations and only used it as a play toy for a few months (it might not have been the FIRST live distro that could set up persistence, but it was definitely the first to be popular) before deciding it just wasn't something I cared for. I still keep an image on my external drive though to throw on a USB quickly if I have issues I need to fix on a pc though, as while I keep a USB of Fedora KDE-respin (just updated it today to 24), being KDE it's not exactly FAST on really old hardware that some of my friends have.

I BELIEVE that it will also show as a ? if they're using TOR or similar anonymizing (is that a word?) software.

When ever I post from anything like Chrome on Android, it shows the question mark.

From a quick bit of reading (http://puppylinux.org/wikka/HowPuppyWorks and http://barryk.org/puppylinux/develop...uppyworks.html), it appears that Puppy Linux can be installed in a FAT filesystem because it actually creates its own filesystem (Squashfs) on ramdisk when it runs, and uses ext2 internally in the savefile that it uses to store config info etc. to whatever filesystem is hosting it.

Well that's the simple explanation anyway. Fascinating.

I didn't read the post like that.
The poster made some pretty strange claims suggesting that SSDs have short lives (and I posted a link suggesting this isn't true) and that they only used FAT file systems for Linux (which, if you read the quote belo, turns out not to be entirely true). The poster also posted similar "clever" posts in other threads.Well, yes, as Puppy is running in memory so the FS it is initially "installed" upon is irrelevant. In fact, I would expect that Puppy comes as a CD image so the file system would be ISO 9660?

Plus the fact while there's nothing wrong with running Puppy, or any other distribution live or otherwise, as one's primary I would expect it to be inconvenient to use full-time for reasons mentioned regarding things like the 4GB file limit of the FAT file system.

Lest I seem to be "reaching for a pitchfork" I would like to point out that it has been dave@burn-it.co.uk who suggested I know nothing yet refuses to cite any sources to show otherwise.

1 members found this post helpful.

I use quite a few browsers including chrome from post #68 they always put the android icon but I don't run HTTPS or the more "secured" TOR like browsers here, tho add blocking stays on script blocking (mostly) goes off.

I'm using HTC's browser on my Android.

I uninstalled chrome.apk awhile back now, my favorite so far is IceCat got through F-Droid (and it picked up most of my Firefox addons for me. Sweet! )