My resignation

jeremy at jeremy at
Wed Jul 14 12:00:04 PDT 2004

> On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 20:36 +0200, Matthias B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:39:53 +0200 Dan Osterrath <Dan.Osterrath at>
>> wrote:
>> > Am Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 12:49 schrieb Matthias B.:
>> > > > When looking for LFS at freshmeat you will find multiple LFS based
>> > > > distros. On the other hand there are also other free projects
>> doing
>> > > > the same as we do.  (I.e. Gentoo)
>> > >
>> > > Gentoo is NOT a book. And LFS is NOT a distro.
>> >
>> > That is the situation now. But why not merge or contribute?
>> Because of the complexity. A distro is complex and even the best
>> technical
>> writer (and no, we don't have him here, unfortunately) can not write
>> away
>> that complexity. So the educational value would suffer because an
>> LFS-distro-book would be too complex for most people to be understood in
>> a
>> realistic timeframe. Have you ever tried to GROK a distro, to know each
>> and every line of each and every boot script, to know all the
>> configuration files to all the packages,...?
>> I find it very disturbing that LFS is already drifting slowly in that
>> direction. The boot scripts are the perfect example. From simple, easy
>> to
>> understand scripts printed in the book they have transformed into a
>> sophisticated package of their own. They include treatment for special
>> cases, different configurations and I don't know what else.
>> A lot (most?) of the people currently working on "improving" LFS are
>> slowly killing it. I guarantee you that unless this is stopped there
>> will
>> be a back-to-the-roots movement in a not-so-distant future. Somebody is
>> going to write a new LFS book and it'll start with something like this:
>> "Unlike the LFS book, this book focuses on giving you a detailed
>> knowledge
>> of a how a Linux system works behind the scenes. For instance, instead
>> of
>> giving you complex pre-packaged boot scripts, it will teach you how to
>> write your own boot scripts."
>> I'm really looking forward to reading this new LFS book.
> I don't know if I agree with everything said here, but I will comment on
> one point.  I never have liked the idea of the bootscripts package.  I
> *do* like what you guys have made and what the bootscripts can do, and I
> don't mind the *option* of using a package.  But I would have been
> really nice if the book had taught me how to make my own.
> That's not to say that I can't now hack the scripts, read through all of
> them, learn to copy, adjust, add, etc.  But as far as education goes,
> there seems to be a lot missing when you're just handed a package and
> told "install this".

The entire reason the LFS-Bootscripts were put into a package was that
having them in the book was VERY typo-prone - by placing the scripts into
a package, we eliminate that problem.  Someone is of course free to disect
the scripts, make them their own.  I myself don't exactly like the way
things have gone with the bootscripts (I thought 2.0.5 was a great
package), but that's not my place to say anymore.  Nathan has been very
good about posting summaries of what he's been doing on list, why have you
guys not given your input to him?  In the absense of any contradictory
opinion, agreement is assumed.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list