woof-CE
woof-CE copied to clipboard
puppylinux-woof-CE
GRUB2
Is this a good time to consider v2.06? Is this a good time to add the BTRFS module? Is this a good time to add the ZFS module?
I have no complaints in GRUB2 use: For it has run wonderfully over past 18 months of it being present. But this and GPArted's filesystem additions might be worth a look for OOTB WoofCE PUPs.
This thread need no response. If its appropriate, it will be incorporated in both the system and the minor stanza line addition.
Run Gparted program. Look at the different file systems list, by going to view->File System Support. Just because there is a file system. There is other requirements to be able to fully use it. Notice the required software that would need to be in Puppy. Notice not everything possible in a file system, is easy to get working.
Hi @01micko
I know you ask me to "wait": Not a problem.
But, I have seen too many boot time issues that have resulted over the past 2 years. YET, I know the development team solved this as far back as 2019.
In looking over the forum since your message to me, it seem that the Puppy boot concern has a lot of over-thinking occurring, while I feel the solution has already been done. Seems many are looking at this from an OLD point of view ignoring working solutions that already incorporates PUP-DOG boots.
So I feel the message, for something really simple that covers all of the WoofCE PUPs, needs merely a clear explanative set of instructions versus the multitude of misunderstandings and multitude of differing approaches to what is already solved for booting PUPs. This might have the result of reducing the "overthinking" that is occurring among developers as well as underthinking that is occurring at the user level.
Can I email an idea to you? My ideas does NOT require development work!
@CollaboratorGCM go for it. Happy to hear your suggestion.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 7:55 AM CollaboratorGCM @.***> wrote:
Hi @01micko https://github.com/01micko
I know you ask me to "wait": Not a problem.
But, I have seen too many boot time issues that have resulted over the past 2 years. YET, I know the development team solved this as far back as 2019.
In looking over the forum since your message, it seem that the Puppy boot concern has a lot of over-thinking occurring, while I feel the solution has already been done. Seems many are looking at this from a OLD point of view ignoring working solutions that already incorporates PUP-DOG boots.
So I feel the message for something really simple that covers all of the WoofCE PUPs needs merely a clear explanative set of instructions versus the multitude of misunderstandings and multitude of differing approaches to what is already solved for booting PUPs. This might have the result of reducing the "overthinking" that is occurring among developers as well as underthinking at the user level.
Can I email an idea to you? My ideas does NOT require development work!
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/woof-CE/issues/2352#issuecomment-889706662, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHYZ3ZPZEBP743XLQ65C3LT2JLIDANCNFSM47I2EXPA .
@01micko , I am sure you saw the reply to the above discussion.
Tday, I found this from distrowatch where Slackware is now GRUB2 v2.06. (located under "Current")
Also, I found this statement on distrowatch from Slackware about their recent kernel decision.
I am sure you are aware, too.
This post is merely a FYI.
This thread is expanded as ii relates to booting PUPs in the Puppy LInux forum.
I ask, here, as I believe a discussion on the forum also applies to WoofCE generated PUPs.
Have WoofCE generated its own key(s) for booting on 'Secure' PCs? (This is not to be a discussion on personal feeling of what the hardware manufacturers in their agreements has done, rather if, like FATDOG, steps have been taken in concert with manufacturer changes)
The forum discussion on 'Signatures" is seen at this forum locaton