Guiding Principles (Repost)
jeremy at jenacon.net
Tue May 11 05:24:08 PDT 2004
Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au said the following on 11-05-2004 03:43:
>> Maybe not educational, but we need to draw a line between arguing on
>> "educational value only" and "expected base functionality".
> The LFS users which we like to attract are intermediate/advanced
> Linux users who wish to explore the inner workings of a Linux system
> by building it from the source. IMHO, ssh, while terribly useful,
> does nothing to fullfil that goal. And besides that, it makes the
> assumption that your LFS box actually *needs* remote login
> functionality. While it is certainly cool if you have more then one
> machine, not everyone has that luxury. Then there is the matter of
> setting up the network in LFS; it was recently decided that it should
> remain in BLFS.
> Perhaps now is the time to focus again on the *principles* of
> deciding which packages should go in?
> Jeroen Coumans
Jeroen, your post got me curious as to what the LFS book currently
implies are its principles. I picked out essentially four points from
the "Who would want to read this book" section:
1. Education - learning how a Linux system works.
2. Compact System
3. Control - you choose what's included.
Of course, then it's mentioned that there are many other reasons, but
these appear to be, as I understand, the main four.
The analogy is also made to the hamburger, and that LFS gives you the
recipe to make your own. Using that analogy, it seems to me that what
you're asking is what packages make a "hamburger" and which ones should
be considered "toppings."
More information about the lfs-dev