ken_i_m ken_i_m at
Sun Jan 14 14:53:28 PST 2001

At 04:37 PM 1/14/01 -0500, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
From: lfs-discuss-owner at
>[mailto:lfs-discuss-owner at]On Behalf Of ken_i_m
>Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 12:07 PM
>To: lfs-discuss at
>Subject: Re: Redhat
> >So, with RedHat having prostituted themselves to the almighty dollar in
> >this manner is it any wonder that we lack respect for them? One of the
> >basic premise in Open Source Software is that the program/package is not
> >ready until it is ready.
>I beg to differ here. "Not ready until it's ready" is about as far away from
>being a "premise" of "Open Source Software" as you can get. One of the
>staples in the existence of Linux is the constant bashing upon of
>"pre-release" software by the users.

Point granted. I should have used different phrasing and drawn a different 
analogy for the point I was trying to make.

While you allude to the alpha, beta, stable process in the rest of you post 
I do not think you will find the word "beta" anywhere on the 7.0 package. 
Please correct me if I am wrong.

As you also allude to Joe End-user picking up the 7.0 retail box off the 
shelf most likely is unaware of all this. As we have seen here on the list 
folks come to LFS with a 7.0 install and go through an enlightenment 
process where they discover that they got screw by RedHat for the twenty 
some dollars (or whatever they paid for the package which did not carry a 
warning that it was beta-wear and did not play nice with the rest of the 
Linux World).

 >My only guess towards it is that installation requires constant monitoring
 >and it's entirely too easy to f*** it up (for every perfect installation
 >I've had of LFS, I've easily had 20 that didn't make it)

I was doing better then 1 in 20 and I feel you may be exagerating a little 
though that is moot to the point I am going to make. I found that the 
blotched installs were a result of typos or forgotten instructions. To this 
end I created a series of shell scripts that automate the process a great 
deal. Then when I want to build a new system with an updated  package, for 
example, the kernel. I make changes to the script that handles that. By 
letting the scripts do all the repititve work I need not worry about 
inadverently introducing new errors via typo etc.

I think, therefore, ken_i_m

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list