On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:32:17AM -0500, Doumbeck1@aol.com wrote:
> 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
Wait a minute. I'm not trying to argue anything here. I'm genuinely
interested in the solutions to the kinds of problems you must run into.
Building a Linux system from scratch is not for the faint of heart, but
if you're up for the experience, it's definitely educational.
I was asking specifically about how you handle putting together systems
that are more than LFS. And likewise, what you meant by "tighter".
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:02:53 EDT