LFS 4.0 or Lunar 1.0?

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 7 11:10:34 PDT 2002

On October 7, 2002 10:41 am, Cameron Thorne wrote:
> I have been waiting for 4.0 for a while, and saw the /. article this
> morning.  Now..I am stuck between choosing LFS 4.0 or Lunar 1.0 for my new
> server.  Has anyone dealt with both extensively?  I am already a fan of LFS
> and have been using it (CVS from about June 26th with some changes..)
> successfully for a while, but Lunar does look interesting as well (I have
> never used Lunar, but have some friends that swear by it).
> Anyone want to run down the major differences?

I'd say the major difference is that with LFS you do all the installing 
yourself, and learning a lot in the process. Lunar, Redhat, Debian, This, 
That and the other one too install packages for you automatically. At this 
point it doens't matter whether or not Lunar is source based and compiles 
every package like LFS does or not. LFS doesn't do anything by itself. It's 
just a book, you are the installation program yourself. You have to type the 
commands and read all the docs that come with a package to figure out how you 
want it installed.

LFS isn't primarily a distribution. It's a manual how to create your own 
distribution. The end result is that you (hopefully) learned what it takes to 
build a distribution.

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list