Perception of LFS

Dario Birtic dariobirtic at
Mon Jan 13 09:28:02 PST 2003

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:08:03 +0000 (UTC)
bdubbs at (Bruce Dubbs) wrote:
> Billy O'Connor wrote:
> >gschafer at (Greg Schafer) writes:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Alan Cox says:
> >>
> >>"I get so many weird never duplicated reports from linux from scratch people
> >>that don't happen to anyone else that I treat them with deep suspicion.
> >>Especially because it sometimes goes away if they instead build the same
> >>kernel with Debian/Red Hat/.. binutils/gcc"
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >If Alan  Cox doesn't want  kernel bug reports  from LFS users,  I'd be
> >more than happy to oblige him, and  not send any.  I get the same sort
> >of  "raised eyebrow" response  from Gnome  developers, who  don't know
> >anything about LFS.  My personal policy in this regard is to reproduce
> >any bug I find on Debian, etc., before sending it in.
> >
> I don't read lfs-support so there may be some issues that I don't know 
> about.  However, I question why lfs people are sending reports to Alan 
> without discussing it on our lists.  I would think the main problems 
> would occur in the context of blfs-support or lfs-dev.  I don't recall 
> any discussions about kernel problems on those lists.
> The point is that lfs users should have the maturity to try to sort out 
> problems on our lists before going to the source developers.  We owe it 
> to them to at least have a reproducible problem before whining to them. 
>  I understand the reasons behind the type of comment expressed above.   
> The lfs community should only forward well researched and discussed 
> problems.

	Ok, I was the one writing about Alan Cox's "ignorance" on the
lfs-support group, and actually, I did wrote something to the lfs-group
*before* LKM. I didn't bother to write to LKM, either. They don't have a
clue without the proper documentation. Kernel hackers, my ass. My
problem is strictly VIA hardware flaw(s). Since VIA has all in the grip,
closed sourced and under NDA, it is difficult as hell to get some info
out of them. What pisses me off, people, is that, Alan Cox & friends are
Linux Kernel developers PAYED to do kernel developing. Am I missing
something here? Sure, there are volunteers, all around the globe,
commiting changes and new stuff to the tree, but I didn't meant them.
So, if I am Alan Cox, and I do my job for $$$, as I do mine everyday job
actually (M$ related shit), I would do the same, I would *ignore*
request from unauthorised user. In this aspect LFS is one large group of
unauthorised users. Why? Well, try to change something in actual
distribution which you bought, Suse, RH, makes no difference, change
something, compile something from source, hit the problem, hit the
support phone, or list, or whatever, first answer is, take the
"original" rpm of offending binary ... So, what's the difference here?
As a LFSer, we don't have an "original", neither do we have "binary" in
that aspect. So, we are unauthorised to Alan Cox & friends.

	Here, I don't like disclaimers, but this is only my 2 cents. I didn't
intend to offend anyone, let alone Alan Cox or Kernel developers, I was
merely expressing my opinion on the subject.

	Thank you
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list