LFS 4.0 or Lunar 1.0?
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.
-*- 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