3 ms·

If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of

If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of a laboratory or museum and telling students that they'll need to whip up their own material to fill in those gaps.

onraglanroad 8mo ago
Yes, it's like asking students to actually produce something themselves. What a horrific thought.
- cf100clunk 8mo ago
  If the students have been well trained, they should be trusted to experiment. If the course curriculum demands that they produce something themselves yet does not educate them on doing so, that's horrific.
nine_k 8mo ago
Certain things should only be taught as a warning. SysV init is one of them.
- cf100clunk 8mo ago
  Back in the day, system run levels were seen as desirable. SysVinit went in on that concept to the max. So, if the concept of run levels isn't clear to the student beforehand, the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible.
  - nine_k 8mo ago
    Runlevels may be an interesting idea (e.g. the single-user maintenance level). But a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea. A Makefile describing runlevels and service dependencies would be a cleaner design (not necessarily a nicer implementation).
    - its_magic 8mo ago
      On the contrary, I much prefer a full Turing complete language rather than trying to shoehorn my ideas into someone else's limited system. The scripts don't have to be complicated, and it doesn't have to be shell scripts. You can use any script or executable that the Linux kernel can load and run. But shell scripts work great and have all the power needed. Systemd is a giant, flaming heap of buggy ass code. Good riddance to it.
ktm5j 8mo ago
From the announcement, it saddens them too: > As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. However the reasoning they provide makes sense.. It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.
- dTal 8mo ago
  Is it? What's the connection between systemd and having a desktop?
  - ktm5j 8mo ago
    Read the article: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
    - cf100clunk 8mo ago
      If GNOME and KDE were the only desktop solutions, your ''Read the article'' comment would be sensible.
- simoncion 8mo ago
  > It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd. Most Gentoo Linux desktop users disagree. In fact, OpenRC is the default in that distro. Having said that, I do expect that Gentoo has more manpower available than LFS.
  - ktm5j 8mo ago
    Maybe they're KDE users. I was under the impression that gnome requires it. FTA it sounds like KDE will soon too. Gentoo doesn't come with a desktop by default either, you have to emerge it, which might install systemd.. FTA: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
jdub 8mo ago
LFS never had academic, educational, or pedagogical merit. It was always sheer faith that by doing enough busywork (except the truly difficult stuff), something might rub off. Maybe you learn some names of component parts. Components change.
- its_magic 8mo ago
  Could you expand on this comment please? (I don't think your viewpoint should be so rudely dismissed through downvoting and moving on.) What do you mean?
dark-star 8mo ago
The old versions of LFS are still available to satisfy your curiosity. Someone should probably save the required source package versions (and patches) before they disappear though

onraglanroad 8mo ago

Yes, it's like asking students to actually produce something themselves. What a horrific thought.

cf100clunk 8mo ago
If the students have been well trained, they should be trusted to experiment. If the course curriculum demands that they produce something themselves yet does not educate them on doing so, that's horrific.

nine_k 8mo ago

Certain things should only be taught as a warning. SysV init is one of them.

cf100clunk 8mo ago
Back in the day, system run levels were seen as desirable. SysVinit went in on that concept to the max. So, if the concept of run levels isn't clear to the student beforehand, the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible.
- nine_k 8mo ago
  Runlevels may be an interesting idea (e.g. the single-user maintenance level). But a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea. A Makefile describing runlevels and service dependencies would be a cleaner design (not necessarily a nicer implementation).
  - its_magic 8mo ago
    On the contrary, I much prefer a full Turing complete language rather than trying to shoehorn my ideas into someone else's limited system. The scripts don't have to be complicated, and it doesn't have to be shell scripts. You can use any script or executable that the Linux kernel can load and run. But shell scripts work great and have all the power needed. Systemd is a giant, flaming heap of buggy ass code. Good riddance to it.

ktm5j 8mo ago

From the announcement, it saddens them too: > As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. However the reasoning they provide makes sense.. It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.

dTal 8mo ago
Is it? What's the connection between systemd and having a desktop?
- ktm5j 8mo ago
  Read the article: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
  - cf100clunk 8mo ago
    If GNOME and KDE were the only desktop solutions, your ''Read the article'' comment would be sensible.
simoncion 8mo ago
> It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd. Most Gentoo Linux desktop users disagree. In fact, OpenRC is the default in that distro. Having said that, I do expect that Gentoo has more manpower available than LFS.
- ktm5j 8mo ago
  Maybe they're KDE users. I was under the impression that gnome requires it. FTA it sounds like KDE will soon too. Gentoo doesn't come with a desktop by default either, you have to emerge it, which might install systemd.. FTA: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"

jdub 8mo ago

LFS never had academic, educational, or pedagogical merit. It was always sheer faith that by doing enough busywork (except the truly difficult stuff), something might rub off. Maybe you learn some names of component parts. Components change.

its_magic 8mo ago
Could you expand on this comment please? (I don't think your viewpoint should be so rudely dismissed through downvoting and moving on.) What do you mean?

dark-star 8mo ago

The old versions of LFS are still available to satisfy your curiosity. Someone should probably save the required source package versions (and patches) before they disappear though