In a message dated 11/13/01 1:12:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
paulf@quillandmouse.com writes:
<< Couple of things. Obviously, there's a helluva lot more involved in
building a "comfortable" system than what's in LFS. As I recall, it was
really a minimal (though functional) system. But if you're going to have
KDE, Mozilla/Konqueror, plus all the other stuff that might come on a
"fat" distro, you're talking about a lot of work, particularly if you
compile from source. This is the biggest advantage of RPM and such--
dependency handling, etc. Plus, it seems like every idiot who builds a
package wants to put his files in the wrong (FHS) places. Three out of
eight packaged I download I have to tweak the makefiles to put things in
the right places. Any thoughts on that stuff?
Also, you mentioned your systems as being "tighter" than most. What do
you mean by that? >>
Ok, I spent the last half hour trying to author an intelligent and thorough
response. I trashed it in favor of this one. It seems to me that this thread
is quickly becoming something like the MS vs Linux arguement
LFS is to Linux as Linux is to Microsoft.
Your arguements are the same as an MS user trying to explain why they
wouldn't want to use Linux. My arguements are going to be exactly the same as
the Linux user's trying to explain to the MS user why they want to try Linux.
Scot Mc Pherson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:57:42 EDT