What next? [Was: Re: LiveCD or No LiveCD?]

TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 11:37:04 PST 2008

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:19:48 +0300
Petr Ovtchenkov <ptr at island.corbina.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday 27 February 2008 10:35, TheOldFellow wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:56 +0300
> > Petr Ovtchenkov <ptr at island.corbina.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
> > > > <skip>
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for
> > > > which I would vote), then many of the difficulties of maintaining the
> > > > LiveCD go away.
> > > 
> > > Well, do you have answer for: assuming package management, what
> > > the key difference between LFS [in future] and Gentoo? This question
> > > is interesting because of target audience and goals.
> > 
> > Gentoo is run by them them, LFS is run by US.
> > 
> > This is called Competition, and is, in general, a Good Thing.  The
> > reason is that it encourages innovation, and innovation means
> > progress.
> > 
> > The alternative, called a Planned Economy, leads to bureaucrats and
> > other parasites who tell you what is best for you while stealing your
> > lunch.
> > 
> > R.
> Richard,
> I don't mean holy war, I mean LFS targets. Adding package management into LFS
> lead to so-so decisions and so-so problems. This decisions and associated
> problems (well, and benefits too) everybody can see on example of Gentoo
> as closest example, and made estimations: is it really what you want?
> [i.e., in business words, 'compare with competitors and understand
> you difference from competitors---you unique offering'].
> IMO, shifting to some 'package management' also shift LFS to econiche
> already thick with 'normal' distibutions. But in this econiche it
> may lost 'educational' and 'basic kit' features. I'm fears that addition
> of package management will kill LFS.
> --
>   - ptr


No Holy War - we agree on that Brother.

I think there is a big difference between Gentoo and LFS.  Gentoo is
run as a distribution, LFS is run as a book - from which you can learn
to build something.  Ok, the end result is similar as far as the
hardware and software is concerned, but not as far as the brainware is

We are targeting, with or without an PM, on an educated Linux user who
knows how to build a system from sources - and can reason around this
space. They are targeting a fully automated Linux installation where the
user need know nothing, indeed is discouraged from looking inside at
all. There isn't anything else like LFS out there.

At the end of the day, both ways can be perverted to do whatever, but
the differentiation is clear to me. I would never say: 'book good, trust
book, as I've seen on the lists'; instead say 'Read Book, Book explains,
now you fix problem' (and we fix book if the explanation isn't good

What adding a well researched and well documented PM does to the book
is enhancement of that understanding to include management of the
resulting system, and possibly automation of certain dreary and
repetitive parts of the build.  I don't see why it's the death-knell.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list