An idea for a new development model

[david567]

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> david567 wrote these words on 08/15/07 11:45 CST:
>   
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>> Indeed, the book would need to be the implementation.
>>     
>
> My point exactly. You are suggesting a total implentation, where
> all we really need to do is explain *how* to implement if the
> reader wants. Not intrusive that way. Not doing a total
> implementation does however ruin cut-and-paste for folks that
> *do* want the framework. But I don't look at that as an issue,
> as we are not suggesting implementation of a PM, but just a
> framework for one of many, which means folks are customizing
> anyway.
>
>   

Agreed.

>>> We've always worked with the underlying philosophy of "minimal". Said
>>> differently, "just enough to create a working bootable system". PM
>>> does not fall into that realm.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Adding sustainable/upgradeable is not too far off the mark.
>>     
>
> To me, it is hundreds of miles off the mark.
>
>   
I'm not sure which of us is the devil's advocate.

'Unix and C, the ultimate virus!', long live LFS!
David Jensen