Minor (unneeded?) omission in LFS 2002-0914?
bdubbs at swbell.net
Sun Sep 15 07:59:08 PDT 2002
Matthias Benkmann wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:16:02 -0500 Archaic <archaic at comcast.net> wrote:
>>deal with that stuff. The one thing that surprises me the most is the
>>page that shows how to untar stuff. It has been mentioned by Gerard that
>>hand-holding in his opinion wasn't desired, so that page is just a
>>invitation to people who have no idea of what they are doing.
>I agree completely. People who don't know how to unpack a tarball have no
>business with LFS. Some people have argued that beginners can use LFS to
>learn Linux but applying this argument here is quite a stretch. Some
>things are essential Linux knowledge that you can't do without. If you are
>actually talented enough that you would be able to pick this up while
>building an LFS system, then you are also talented enough to learn this
>stuff BEFORE beginning with LFS. Why is it bad to force people to spend 1
>or 2 additional days reading manpages on the host distro before they can
>start with LFS?
>All the people who want to dumb down LFS more and more for the sake of
>"learning value" seem to think that LFS is the only way to learn stuff
>about Linux. It's NOT! And it's definitely not the best way to learn about
>Linux essentials like cp, tar, gzip.
>We need to raise the LFS bar again. Stuff like the "How to install the
>software" section needs to be kicked out without replacement.
I agree in general that LFS is an advanced project and is not really
suitable for learning the basics. However, I feel sections like "How to
install" are appropriate. There are many ways to do things, but wen
need to explain how our specific implementation works. Its certainly OK
(even encouraged) for LFSers to change things, but they need to know the
assumptions we use.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev