Please recommend another light weight Linux version.
PuppyThis forum is for the discussion of Puppy Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Would you have a link for that somewhere. I would like to see how that was implemented, and what javascript engine was used, how it was integrated etc. I am half way familiar with dillo's code tree.
If I could, I'd be happy to. But he wasn't very forthcoming about details. He presented the re-worked browser as a 'fait-accompli', but gave next to no detail as to what he'd done.
Unfortunately, some of our Puppy 'devs' are like this. They beaver away in secret for weeks or even months at a time, keeping everything to themselves. No sharing of specifics, asking for trials/suggestions/ideas as to improvement. Others of our 'devs' are as open as you could wish for, and happily take constructive criticism in their stride, accepting suggestions/offers of help as & when they're presented.
Our Dillo 're-engineer' falls into the first category. He's SO secretive about what he does it's almost worse than proprietary coders. This has been mentioned to him on many occasions, but it falls on deaf ears. Either that, or he's got a hide like a rhino.....
He's mainly tolerated because he creates some quite amazing & unique software for the community. People are prepared to forgive him a LOT for this very reason.
(*shrug*)
Mike.
Last edited by Mike_Walsh; 03-18-2023 at 07:52 PM.
If I could, I'd be happy to. But he wasn't very forthcoming about details. He presented the re-worked browser as a 'fait-accompli', but gave next to no detail as to what he'd done.
Unfortunately, some of our Puppy 'devs' are like this. They beaver away in secret for weeks or even months at a time, keeping everything to themselves. No sharing of specifics, asking for trials/suggestions/ideas as to improvement. Others of our 'devs' are as open as you could wish for, and happily take constructive criticism in their stride, accepting suggestions/offers of help as & when they're presented.
Our Dillo 're-engineer' falls into the first category. He's SO secretive about what he does it's almost worse than proprietary coders. This has been mentioned to him on many occasions, but it falls on deaf ears. Either that, or he's got a hide like a rhino.....
He's mainly tolerated because he creates some quite amazing & unique software for the community. People are prepared to forgive him a LOT for this very reason.
(*shrug*)
Mike.
So he's taking and modifying open source software (GPL v3), and not making the modified source code available when he releases the software? Isn't that not permitted according to the GPL v3 that Dillo is released under? I know I wouldn't stand for it, I don't care how good someone is, if they're not willing to respect copyright, I'd be kicking them right on out. And the fact that the puppy leaders allow him to get away with it is IMO a good reason to avoid touching Puppy. To blatantly ignore the GPL like that and be ok with it is showing a complete lack of respect.
Actually, having said that about the way our Dillo 're-engineer' practices his coding, it HAS sparked off a pretty fierce, and intense debate about the whole practice of licencing in the Linux world. The guy in question is NOT, I stress, representative of the community as a whole; most of us who create original applications and/or re-package or modify code originally produced by others are very mindful of the process of giving fair credit where it's due, especially to original authors.
To my way of thinking, it even applies to many of the small, Puppy-specific utilities some of us throw together, which merely make use of existing functionality within the system.......original scripting is involved, yet credit is also due to the authors of the built-in functions we make use OF.
As far as light goes, arch can be as light as you want, and still have access to all the repos and AUR. Binary packages so that you don't have to compile stuff unless you want to. And it's a rolling release so, install once, use machine for 10 years. But...it's arch, you keep it running yourself.
So he's taking and modifying open source software (GPL v3), and not making the modified source code available when he releases the software? Isn't that not permitted according to the GPL v3 that Dillo is released under?
Providing binaries of a modified version of Dillo without also providing/offering the modified source would be a violation of Dillo's GPL license.
However, after a quick search the only relevant result seems to be https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=4499 where the download link is to a GitHub project release page, and the associated repository would seem to contain pertinent commits, so there is probably no violation there.
The GPL does not require public/interactive development, but does require more than merely giving credit.
autogen.sh
configure
make
...
/usr/bin/ld: dpi_socket_dir.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid_common.h:43: multiple definition of `dpi_errno'; dpi.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid_common.h:43: first defined here
...
/usr/bin/ld: misc_new.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid_common.h:43: multiple definition of `dpi_errno'; dpi.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid_common.h:43: first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
...
/usr/bin/ld: main.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid.h:58: multiple definition of `dpi_attr_list'; dpid.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid.h:58: first defined here
...
/usr/bin/ld: main.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid.h:55: multiple definition of `numsocks'; dpid.o:...dilloNG-Dillo3.1X/dpid/dpid.h:55: first defined here
Ok those are dpi error no and plugin errors.
Code:
/*! \file
* Declares common functions, global variables, and types.
*
* \todo
* The dpid error codes will be used in
* the next patch
*/
Providing binaries of a modified version of Dillo without also providing/offering the modified source would be a violation of Dillo's GPL license.
However, after a quick search the only relevant result seems to be https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=4499 where the download link is to a GitHub project release page, and the associated repository would seem to contain pertinent commits, so there is probably no violation there.
The GPL does not require public/interactive development, but does require more than merely giving credit.
Ah, the post made it sound like there was no public source. Good sleuthing at finding that.
I had to alter the makefile, config.h, autoconf etc, to get that to compile. Because arch is in it's own world. And, I compiled it with mbedtls instead of ssl, because I know that works with dillo..
Review:
It is a little different looking. The interface that is. Seems to load everything so far. Haven't noticed any difference from the official dillo code tree compiled with mbedtls.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
