I've always liked Puppy Linux and tried Lucid Puppy - it's great! It does
some things better than K/Ubuntu, for example it handed my Broadcom NIC
effortlessly. The speed is fantastic as it's all in RAM. There is not much
it can't do, all in 128 MB.

It's a bit quirky in some ways but result an amazingly piece of work. I'll
be using it in my 2002 ECS desknote as soon as the replacement for the dead
DVD Rom drive arrives ( from www.pchub.com).

I tried it right now. It is OK and I am going to use it more, but only as a
live CD.

Does anyone know if lucid puppy supports frugal installs, and if so, can
they coexist with a Puppy 4.X frugal install?

From my reading all Pups support frugal installs, but if you have more
than one Pup it probably needs to be on a separate partition.
Configuring Grub might be tricky though...

You could always try installing in virtual machines ...

Yes, the new Puppy should not see the files of the old one because it does
automatic upgrade when booting the new one and destroys the other installation.
This is a serious bug.

No, Puppy can be installed on the same partition as Ubuntu and I will redo
this. Right now I do not have Ubuntu on my PC, I switched to Dreamlinux.

Puppy, DSL and FreeDOS can even be installed on a flash drive, so you can have
3 OSes on a flash drive.
Configuring Grub in this case is quite easy. For these 3 OSes on the flash
drive the menu.list file looked like this:
default 0
timeout 10
title DSL
root (hd0,1)
kernel /linux24 ramdisk_size=100000 lang=us quiet vga=791 frugal
initrd /minirt24.gz
title Freedos
root (hd0,0)
makeactive
chainloader +1
boot
title Puppy Linux 400 frugal
rootnoverify (hd0,0)
kernel /puppy400/vmlinuz pmedia=idehd psubdir=puppy400
initrd /puppy400/initrd.gz

I slammed the Puppy installation right on the FAT32 partition on which FreeDOS
was.
Unfortunately right now I do not have the stick.

For installing DreamLinux and FreeDOS on separate partitions
on a SATA drive and also being able to boot Windows 2000
installed on another hard drive I modified the menu.list file
(I also modified some OS titles for reasons of mockery and as an
intention of surprise for somebody):

# created by menulst_create.rb
#
default 0
timeout 5
gfxmenu (hd0,1)/boot/grub/message.dream
#
title Ezer furge falank teknosbeka a szilvafan
root (hd0,1)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.28.5-1-i686-dream root=/dev/sda2 vga=791
splash=silent,fadein,theme=default console=tty1 ro quiet
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.28.5-1-i686-dream

title Dreamlinux (sda2, mbr) (recovery mode)
root (hd0,1)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.28.5-1-i686-dream root=/dev/sda2 ro quiet single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.28.5-1-i686-dream

title Dreamlinux (sda2, mbr) (memtest)
root (hd0,1)
kernel /boot/memtest86+.bin
quiet

# This is a divider, added to separate the menu items below
title Other operating systems:
root


title FreeDOS cel bengos
root (hd0,0)
chainloader +1
makeactive
boot


title Windows 2000 cel usurel si sprinten
root (hd1,0)
chainloader +1
makeactive
boot

That's definitely not what i would want to happen. Thanks for the heads
up.

Does that include folders like home/documents? I am about to get a 600mhz laptop
with 10gb of ram and it runs windws xp, well I thought I should install linux
seeing as it will be faster. Is Puppy really much faster than Ubuntu?

Yes, it is lightning fast but somewhat slower than Damn Small Linux.
I never managed to install Puppy in a classical manner, I did only frugal
installs.
Your laptop has 600 MHz processor and 1 GB ?
Maybe, apart from Puppy, something like Crunchbang Linux or Dreamlinux or
Mepis Antix would be very good.
Puppy is much faster even than Windows XP or Windows 2000.
However, I was amazed by the speed of Dreamlinux, even with the Gnome desktop
environment and I really do not understand how it is possible for it to be so
fast. Anyway, its XFCE desktop has the speed of Windows 2000 at least.

Your laptop has 600 MHz processor and 1 GB ?

512MB, why didnt you install in classical manner?

I want to stick to Debian line as I have just spent some time learning how
Ubuntu works.

Well, the laptop I am getting was built in year 2000, so is dream linux speed
faster than Ubuntu? What about using Ubuntu with XFCE instead of Gnome?

I used 9.10 with XFCE and was satisfied with its performance. I use GNOME more
frequently, though.

I never managed a straightforward Puppy installation because after installation
it did not boot up. Maybe I did not know there what options to choose for
installing Grub. I managed only frugal installs.
Yes, under Ubuntu I have used lots of windowmanagers and desktop environments,
in most cases I preferred E17 and FVWM-Crystal, sometimes I went back to Gnome,
sometimes I used XFCE.
In Dreamlinux both XFCE and Gnome are very fast. Faster than under Ubuntu.
Yesterday I wiped out the Windows 2000 installation on which I experimented
for one day and got both pleasant and unpleasant surprises.
Right now, again, I have Ubuntu on my machine, on another hard drive.
sites.google.com/.../snapshots-with-installing-ubuntu-l\
ucid-lynx-on-my-pc