LFS size and hardware requirements

[Bruce Dubbs]

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:

> After some thought, I still can't come with a complete, correct and meaningful 
> paragraph. The problem is that, while the statements about achievable sizes are 
> true, it is technically incorrect to show them as advantages of LFS. In fact, 
> binary distros are more suitable to such reduction, because they (unlike LFS) 
> survive removal of gcc painlessly.

I think you are overlooking one of the key advantages of LFS.  By showing how 
everything fits together, we convey the knowledge about what is necessary and 
what is not.  Of course that "necessary" list varies according to the 
computational need.  Do you need perl?  gcc?  gawk?  tar?

We provide a foundation from which a user can learn to intelligently make those 
choices.   That is something the I don't think any other "distro" provides.

   -- Bruce