headers
Jim Lesurf | 19 Mar 2010 17:07
Picon

Puppy Linux and ROX

As I have an old laptop which only has a small amount of RAM, etc, I
decided to experiment with Puppy Linux. Have done a HD 'full install' using
the version of Puppy Linux that was on the cover DVD of the current 'Linux
Format' magazine. i.e. Version 4/3/1

This clearly uses ROX as the general filer, but I haven't been able to get
application directories to work. I can click on 'AppRun' inside a directory
and that works to run something. But I assume this is because it is the
default behaviour anyway even if not using ROX-Filer!

If I try to drag and drop a file to a ROX app directory that - on my other
machines - would the load the file and process it I'm just asked if I want
to copy/move/etc the file. If I click on an Ap dir that should run an app,
it just treats it as a click on a normal directory.

Is the version of ROX-Filer used by Puppy 'cut down' to exclude Application
directories, or do I need to change a setting somewhere?

Since I'm asking about the above I'll ask about two other points.

Firstly, I also find that 'rox -S' doesn't start a session or produce an
'icon bar'. Is this for similar reasons to the above, or is Puppy already
using ROX but the lower panel doesn't look and behave as I'd expect?

Finally, this is Puppy specific, but I may as well dare to ask since if
someone replies who knows Puppy they may be happy to explain... :-)

I downloaded the sfs file for the GCC compiler, etc, The instructions for a
HD install told me to follow an instruction but this prompted "/mnt/hda2/
is not a..." So I am not clear it worked correctly. The main hard disc
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jim Lesurf | 24 Mar 2010 18:16
Picon

Re: Puppy Linux and ROX

Although no-one responded to my previous email on the topic I thought I
might as well report 'progress' to see if it was other would have
anticipated.

I gave up on Puppy Linux. Not only ROX seemed setup oddly[1], but it seemed
to be an inordinate struggle to add much beyond the default install. So,
for example, installing GCC following the instructions on the web didn't
work. Or at least, repeated attempts I made failed.

'Solved' the problem by trying crunchbang lite instead. That seems to work
nicely. Installing rox and GCC gave no problems. And it seems happy to run
in less than 192MB of RAM. :-)

FWIW Since crunchbang is (AIUI) based on Ubuntu I installed the version of
ROX obtainable via apt-get and assume it is the same as I installed on my
Ubuntu and Xubuntu machines with synaptic. (?)

Left with the impression that Puppy is nice for a minimal 'live' use if you
don't need to install or compile anything extra.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Perhaps to avoid confusing new Linux users with being presented with
runnable application directories.

--

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Abrolag | 24 Mar 2010 20:32
Picon

Re: Puppy Linux and ROX

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:16:44 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf <jcgl <at> audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> Although no-one responded to my previous email on the topic I thought I
> might as well report 'progress' to see if it was other would have
> anticipated.
> 
> I gave up on Puppy Linux. Not only ROX seemed setup oddly[1], but it seemed
> to be an inordinate struggle to add much beyond the default install. So,
> for example, installing GCC following the instructions on the web didn't
> work. Or at least, repeated attempts I made failed.
> 
> 'Solved' the problem by trying crunchbang lite instead. That seems to work
> nicely. Installing rox and GCC gave no problems. And it seems happy to run
> in less than 192MB of RAM. :-)
> 
> FWIW Since crunchbang is (AIUI) based on Ubuntu I installed the version of
> ROX obtainable via apt-get and assume it is the same as I installed on my
> Ubuntu and Xubuntu machines with synaptic. (?)
> 
> Left with the impression that Puppy is nice for a minimal 'live' use if you
> don't need to install or compile anything extra.
> 
> Slainte,
> 
> Jim
> 
> [1] Perhaps to avoid confusing new Linux users with being presented with
> runnable application directories.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane