Advertising for LFS

Florin Boariu florin at bnv-bamberg.de
Wed Jan 17 06:04:54 PST 2001


On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Stefan Hoffmeister wrote:

> : On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:09:14 +0100 (CET), Florin Boariu wrote:
> 
> >LFS for example is part of "people understanding linux", 
> 
> FWIW, computers and operating systems are not self-serving things. They
> are meant to be used - by users who are not forced to understand Linux,
> Windows, BeOS, MacOS.

Perfectly right!

> Case in point, I'll be *using* LFS (or ALFS) once I find the time to get a
> couple of tasks done. I have little interest in system administration or
> system setup; the only thing that I care about is that it *works*. LFS is
> to be the vehicle, the tool, that allows me to get Linux running in a
> manageable setup, not with thousands of utility tools that will hardly
> ever be required, but with exactly those tools and kernel patches that get
> the job done - and done *exceedingly* well.

Exactly _that_ is the point!

Just replace LFS by <random-distro> or even <random-os>:

"I'll be *using* <rd> (or <rd-derivate>) once I find
the time to get a couple of tasks done. I have little interest in system
administration or setup; the only thing that I care about is that it
*works*. <rd> is to be the vehicle.... that allows me to get Linux <my
system> running in a manageable setup, not with thousands of <config file
options> that will hardly ever be required..."

You see, that't the argument _everyone_ uses. And the point is, _everyone_
is right.

> When I look at my current mini-office server which runs SuSE 7.0, I am
> embarrassed at how much fluff there is, and how much more maintainable
> this server would be if there was less stuff around. When I look at my
> main development system (which also runs SuSE 7.0), I am embarrassed at
> how much fluff is there - and how much useful stuff is missing there,
> which I don't dare to add, because I don't know where it will break the
> existing SuSE infrastructure.
> 
> LFS and Linux as a whole are (part of) solutions.

The big problem was also discussed in the RedHat-thread, as far as I
read: linux != linux. People buy that stuff and think it's linux,
(c) RedHat/RandomCompany.

On the second thought, advertising LFS might be not a bad idea after
all... LFS is the scratch-an-itch version of a random distribution... that
might have a healty effect in the sense that people would finally be
confronted with the real nature of linux.

regards,
florin.


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




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list