10 ms·

Once you get bored with a regular distribution you can go and try Linux from Scratch. Me, personally, this was the tool that really introduced me to Linux OS.

Once you get bored with a regular distribution you can go and try Linux from Scratch. Me, personally, this was the tool that really introduced me to Linux OS. Understanding how everything is put together and how it bootstraps will make you a better user of whatever distro you choose in the end. (No, don't use LFS on your workstation.)

rajman187 6y ago
Indeed. I never wandered that far into the deep end but did spend years running Gentoo as my main (initially, then sole) OS of choice. It took a few tries, emerge --update --newuse --deep --quiet @world was very slow on the Pentium III, but once it was up and running I loved every aspect of using it with openbox WM and others like it, sharing with folks on deviantart, etc. I don't think I'll go back to that at any point, as it was far too much effort, but in terms of what I learned it was invaluable. I should caveat that I would like to do the same with a BSD system at some point, only for fun on a separate machine.
m463 6y ago
I enjoy arch for the same reasons, but I am not familiar with Linux from Scratch. you say not to use it on your workstation -- is it more of an tutorial than a distro?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  LFS wouldn't have a package manager (as far as I know) so it would be an insane amount of effort to keep all the software up to date (by recompiling everything manually). Arch is actually a nice middle-ground. It's got a lot of learning potential (you still build the system from scratch by installing everything manually and creating the right files and mount points - there is no installer) but it's not as tedious as LFS and can actually be usable day to day (spend years on Arch before moving to proprietary OSes).
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    I would add that the last time I used LFS was almost 20 years ago. I don't know if the procedure got more complex. From what I skimmed it looks manageable (I guess that's the whole point). The reason for not using LFS would actually be security. It is possible to just install whatever you want and then use it for a long time (akin to LTS Ubuntu distribution). But you still need to somehow notice there are critical security updates and you definitely don't want to miss them. Another reason is that distro developers create a huge amount of convenient mechanisms and choices for the users. As an example, getting software X to work might not be a problem, but getting X to work along Y and Z when they might have conflicting dependencies might already be a headache. Distro developers will ensure various dependencies are tested and make sense together. If you install something on Gentoo (sorry, I don't have experience with Arch) and it doesn't work, there is a good chance it is possible to make it work and you can Google the solution. When you install something on LFS and it doesn't work you are pretty much on your own.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  I would say it is somewhere between tutorial and distro. It is a distro that has no binaries for you to download. Instead you copy/paste pieces of code and follow instructions. Instructions are regularly updated like a real distro.

rajman187 6y ago

Indeed. I never wandered that far into the deep end but did spend years running Gentoo as my main (initially, then sole) OS of choice. It took a few tries, emerge --update --newuse --deep --quiet @world was very slow on the Pentium III, but once it was up and running I loved every aspect of using it with openbox WM and others like it, sharing with folks on deviantart, etc. I don't think I'll go back to that at any point, as it was far too much effort, but in terms of what I learned it was invaluable. I should caveat that I would like to do the same with a BSD system at some point, only for fun on a separate machine.

m463 6y ago

I enjoy arch for the same reasons, but I am not familiar with Linux from Scratch. you say not to use it on your workstation -- is it more of an tutorial than a distro?

Nextgrid 6y ago
LFS wouldn't have a package manager (as far as I know) so it would be an insane amount of effort to keep all the software up to date (by recompiling everything manually). Arch is actually a nice middle-ground. It's got a lot of learning potential (you still build the system from scratch by installing everything manually and creating the right files and mount points - there is no installer) but it's not as tedious as LFS and can actually be usable day to day (spend years on Arch before moving to proprietary OSes).
- lmilcin 6y ago
  I would add that the last time I used LFS was almost 20 years ago. I don't know if the procedure got more complex. From what I skimmed it looks manageable (I guess that's the whole point). The reason for not using LFS would actually be security. It is possible to just install whatever you want and then use it for a long time (akin to LTS Ubuntu distribution). But you still need to somehow notice there are critical security updates and you definitely don't want to miss them. Another reason is that distro developers create a huge amount of convenient mechanisms and choices for the users. As an example, getting software X to work might not be a problem, but getting X to work along Y and Z when they might have conflicting dependencies might already be a headache. Distro developers will ensure various dependencies are tested and make sense together. If you install something on Gentoo (sorry, I don't have experience with Arch) and it doesn't work, there is a good chance it is possible to make it work and you can Google the solution. When you install something on LFS and it doesn't work you are pretty much on your own.
lmilcin 6y ago
I would say it is somewhere between tutorial and distro. It is a distro that has no binaries for you to download. Instead you copy/paste pieces of code and follow instructions. Instructions are regularly updated like a real distro.