6 ms·

Do people still use/build LFS ? What's the use case ?

by rs 15y ago

grifaton 15y ago
It's a great way to learn how Linux works. I don't know of anybody using a Linux they've built from scratch for anything other than their education, though.
- thiagoharry 15y ago
  I used Linux from Scratch as my regular operating system during two years. It was very fun to know that I built everything that I was using. The system was also good because only softwares that I really need were installed. But one sad day, I needed to format the hard drive. I wouldn't have the patience to build everything from scratch again. So, I installed Ubuntu. :-(
  - orky7 15y ago
    i am really curious suppose i have machine X everything configured and i have a new machine Y same architecture(let 64bit) can i port from one two another.
    - bernatfp 15y ago
      I am wondering if it would be as easy as doing a dd from the old disk to an external an then to an extended partition in the new machine HD...
      - derleth 15y ago
        You could if the new machine was very similar to the old one. In practice, the new hardware is better in some ways, so just copying everything will either not work at all or only work sub-optimally. OTOH, your personal application configuration files (editor, window manager, etc.) can nearly always be copied as-is without causing any problems. Some people have been copying the same .emacs from machine to machine for years, if not decades, upgrading Emacs all the while.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    If I wanted to learn how to do it myself but still let it be repeatable, would it be a good idea to write a script or scripts that does it instead of running all the commands by hand?
- Someone 15y ago
  Hm, apparently, there are at least two meanings of "how Linux works". To learn how Linux works, I would recommend Linux internals, because from skimming the TOC, it seems similar to "UNIX internals, the new frontiers". The latter book does not mention Linux, but probably learns you more about what I would describe as "how Linux works" than this book. This book is more of a 'how do you build a new distribution from scratch'. Doing that will learn you a bit about the userland tools and their dependencies. That can be fun to do and useful, but it is a different thing.
btn 15y ago
The book has a section answering that very question: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.0/prologue/audience.html http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.0/prologue/audien...
kia 15y ago
I am using LFS as a primary OS for Linux development and on servers. I can tell my story how I ended up with LFS in the forest of Linux distributions. Some time ago when I started to learn Linux I have tried a lot of different distributions. All of them had their quirks. Some were buggy. Some were slow. Some had extremely weird and bloated configuration systems. Imagine several layers of abstraction above plain standard configuration files when you have to learn everything basically from the beginning with a different distribution. For example on top of standard config files they may have some configuration system (like YaST in SUSE) on top of which the GUI sits (so 3 layers just to change the screen resolution). Many distros have their own "unique" way of configuring the system. And when something will brake you will have no idea where the problem might be. Is it a bug in the package or in some layer of configuration system or somewhere else? I understand that they try to make the system more user friendly. Well, every one has its own niche. With LFS you just learn the configuration of basic packages once. The way that package creator intended. Plain text files and nothing more. As an additional bonus you have great performance and security because you only have the packages you need. Plus everything is optimized for your architecture. If you have ever used some distribution in a virtual machine on a slow notebook you know what I am talking about. When I built LFS for the first time I did everything by hand. It was a very useful experience and a nice way to learn. Of course now I don't do it manually. You can use automated tools (jhalfs for example) which extract instructions from the book and do everything for you. I don't use any graphical environment so no need to build a lot of stuff beyond the base system. Of course LSF has its own issues. Lack of package management is one of them. But if you like minimalistic and fast systems you should give LFS a try.
- taudelta 15y ago
  try archlinux, it's like lfs with a package manager and binary packages
  - hollerith 15y ago
    Which is why Arch Linux is my favorite distro.
  - wolf550e 15y ago
barrkel 15y ago
Here's my use case: if you're not 100% sure how a Linux system is put together, and you want to learn The Hard Way (in a Zed Shaw sense), then put aside a weekend and go through as much of LFS as you can handle. Since it largely works from the bottom up, you can keep going with it until it starts to meet what you already know from the top down. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle for an ongoing installation, unless you have specific requirements around a minimal tuned distro. But it's excellent for learning.
lanstein 15y ago
To develop a mortal fear of putting anything in /opt?
bernatfp 15y ago
In my case, we build a LFS in a subject at university. We are learning bash, linux usage, so what better way to learn Linux than building a LFS?
pwaring 15y ago
I've used it in the past to learn how a distribution is built from, well, scratch. :) Nowadays distributions like Ubuntu allow you to install a full system with just a few mouse clicks, which is great for usability but not much use if you want to learn how everything works.
dgallagher 15y ago
As others' mentioned, LFS is a great way to learn about Linux. After building LFS, I migrated to Gentoo. LFS shows you how everything is done manually, where Gentoo takes care of all that grunt-work via Portage. LFS is an excellent stepping-stone towards Gentoo (or any other package-managed distro), showing you how things are working under the hood.

Do people still use/build LFS ? What's the use case ?

by rs 15y ago

Do people still use/build LFS ? What's the use case ?

It's a great way to learn how Linux works. I don't know of anybody using a Linux they've built from scratch for anything other than their education, though.

thiagoharry 15y ago
I used Linux from Scratch as my regular operating system during two years. It was very fun to know that I built everything that I was using. The system was also good because only softwares that I really need were installed. But one sad day, I needed to format the hard drive. I wouldn't have the patience to build everything from scratch again. So, I installed Ubuntu. :-(
- orky7 15y ago
  i am really curious suppose i have machine X everything configured and i have a new machine Y same architecture(let 64bit) can i port from one two another.
  - bernatfp 15y ago
    I am wondering if it would be as easy as doing a dd from the old disk to an external an then to an extended partition in the new machine HD...
    - derleth 15y ago
      You could if the new machine was very similar to the old one. In practice, the new hardware is better in some ways, so just copying everything will either not work at all or only work sub-optimally. OTOH, your personal application configuration files (editor, window manager, etc.) can nearly always be copied as-is without causing any problems. Some people have been copying the same .emacs from machine to machine for years, if not decades, upgrading Emacs all the while.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  If I wanted to learn how to do it myself but still let it be repeatable, would it be a good idea to write a script or scripts that does it instead of running all the commands by hand?
Someone 15y ago
Hm, apparently, there are at least two meanings of "how Linux works". To learn how Linux works, I would recommend Linux internals, because from skimming the TOC, it seems similar to "UNIX internals, the new frontiers". The latter book does not mention Linux, but probably learns you more about what I would describe as "how Linux works" than this book. This book is more of a 'how do you build a new distribution from scratch'. Doing that will learn you a bit about the userland tools and their dependencies. That can be fun to do and useful, but it is a different thing.

btn 15y ago

The book has a section answering that very question: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.0/prologue/audience.html http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.0/prologue/audien...

kia 15y ago

I am using LFS as a primary OS for Linux development and on servers. I can tell my story how I ended up with LFS in the forest of Linux distributions. Some time ago when I started to learn Linux I have tried a lot of different distributions. All of them had their quirks. Some were buggy. Some were slow. Some had extremely weird and bloated configuration systems. Imagine several layers of abstraction above plain standard configuration files when you have to learn everything basically from the beginning with a different distribution. For example on top of standard config files they may have some configuration system (like YaST in SUSE) on top of which the GUI sits (so 3 layers just to change the screen resolution). Many distros have their own "unique" way of configuring the system. And when something will brake you will have no idea where the problem might be. Is it a bug in the package or in some layer of configuration system or somewhere else? I understand that they try to make the system more user friendly. Well, every one has its own niche. With LFS you just learn the configuration of basic packages once. The way that package creator intended. Plain text files and nothing more. As an additional bonus you have great performance and security because you only have the packages you need. Plus everything is optimized for your architecture. If you have ever used some distribution in a virtual machine on a slow notebook you know what I am talking about. When I built LFS for the first time I did everything by hand. It was a very useful experience and a nice way to learn. Of course now I don't do it manually. You can use automated tools (jhalfs for example) which extract instructions from the book and do everything for you. I don't use any graphical environment so no need to build a lot of stuff beyond the base system. Of course LSF has its own issues. Lack of package management is one of them. But if you like minimalistic and fast systems you should give LFS a try.

taudelta 15y ago
try archlinux, it's like lfs with a package manager and binary packages
- hollerith 15y ago
  Which is why Arch Linux is my favorite distro.
- wolf550e 15y ago

barrkel 15y ago

Here's my use case: if you're not 100% sure how a Linux system is put together, and you want to learn The Hard Way (in a Zed Shaw sense), then put aside a weekend and go through as much of LFS as you can handle. Since it largely works from the bottom up, you can keep going with it until it starts to meet what you already know from the top down. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle for an ongoing installation, unless you have specific requirements around a minimal tuned distro. But it's excellent for learning.

lanstein 15y ago

To develop a mortal fear of putting anything in /opt?

bernatfp 15y ago

In my case, we build a LFS in a subject at university. We are learning bash, linux usage, so what better way to learn Linux than building a LFS?

pwaring 15y ago

I've used it in the past to learn how a distribution is built from, well, scratch. :) Nowadays distributions like Ubuntu allow you to install a full system with just a few mouse clicks, which is great for usability but not much use if you want to learn how everything works.

dgallagher 15y ago

As others' mentioned, LFS is a great way to learn about Linux. After building LFS, I migrated to Gentoo. LFS shows you how everything is done manually, where Gentoo takes care of all that grunt-work via Portage. LFS is an excellent stepping-stone towards Gentoo (or any other package-managed distro), showing you how things are working under the hood.