LiveCD Future

Robert Connolly robert at
Wed Oct 15 20:16:11 PDT 2008

On Wednesday October 15 2008 09:40:24 pm Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
> I know that we've talked about this before but given the events of the
> past year or so, I'd like to revisit this briefly.
> Alexander and I have been talking and we're trying to take a very
> realistic approach to any efforts made to re-enliven the LiveCD project.
> Without going into too many details of our own concerns and ideas about
> the future of the project (yet), I'd appreciate some feedback/opinions
> concerning the usefulness of the LiveCD.
> This thread is not designed to spark feature requests. Whatever
> direction we pursue, the LiveCD (or at least the main one) will aim to
> be fairly simple. The purpose of this thread is to see at what level are
> LiveCDs beneficial or useful to the community, especially the {,B}LFS
> editors so that we can modify the core goals and aims of the project for
> future efforts.

I think we should focus on "what do we need". We do not need to fill a 650mb 
cdrom. We just need enough to build LFS. Anything more than that and we get 
into problems with maintenance. This does not have to be complicated. We do 
not have to believe we're competing with other live-cd's.

A console-based LFS live-cd is doable, it works, it can be maintained with the 
resources we have, and it's better than nothing.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the livecd mailing list