Slashdot Mirror

Linux From Scratch guides you through making your own 'distro' from sources.

Its very interesting since it shows how different things work in Linux. However it can be practical for making a minimal system...

For your purpose, Knoppix seems very practical (based on Debian with the easy package management). "Knoppix Hacks" from O'Reilly contains a chapter on remastering the ISO

Nah, it's not really about building a distro, in terms of something you're actively engineering for others.

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/:
Why would I want an LFS system?

Many wonder why they should go through the hassle of building a Linux system from scratch when they could just download an existing Linux distribution. However, there are several benefits of building LFS. Consider the following:

LFS teaches people how a Linux system works internally
Building LFS teaches you about all that makes Linux tick, how things work together and depend on each other. And most importantly, how to customize it to your own tastes and needs.

Building LFS produces a very compact Linux system
When you install a regular distribution, you often end up installing a lot of programs that you would probably never use. They're just sitting there taking up (precious) disk space. It's not hard to get an LFS system installed under 100 MB. Does that still sound like a lot? A few of us have been working on creating a very small embedded LFS system. We installed a system that was just enough to run the Apache web server; total disk space usage was approximately 8 MB. With further stripping, that can be brought down to 5 MB or less. Try that with a regular distribution.

LFS is extremely flexible
Building LFS could be compared to a finished house. LFS will give you the skeleton of a house, but it's up to you to install plumbing, electrical outlets, kitchen, bath, wallpaper, etc. You have the ability to turn it into whatever type of system you need it to be, customized completely for you.

LFS offers you added security
You will compile the entire system from source, thus allowing you to audit everything, if you wish to do so, and apply all the security patches you want or need to apply. You don't have to wait for someone else to provide a new binary package that (hopefully) fixes a security hole. Often, you never truly know whether a security hole is fixed or not unless you do it yourself.



I'll add that it will give you some excellent OJT on the various tools, as well as an appreciation both for why GUI and a pre-compiled OS is both a luxury and a prison compared to a CLI and source code.
Package management is a chore, though. Once you're in the door, you may go eventually near the ol' online distro of justice...

But if you really want to get into the guts of Linux, check out Linux From Scratch.

...there is a need for ability to configure a modern Linux system from scratch..

After reading your post, I initially agreed with you. Then I remembered all the horrible, horrible crap I wrote in basic.

The problem with basic, as I experienced it, is that it never really taught me programming. I started out in QuickBASIC, screwed around for a bit, and then screwed around in Visual Basic. But nothing I wrote had any kind of structure at all. I would type in random statments, hit "run", have it fail to compile, attempt fix the compile errors, hit run again, get a runtime error, write a few more lines, and so on until it eventually worked. I never understood what I was writing, and I never really understood why certain things wouldn't work. That's the big problem with Visual Basic (besides being a hacked-together language): it makes it incredibly easy for beginners to write code that they don't understand.

I really don't think I made any progress until I started trying to write games in C++. The advantage with C++, of course, is that it forces you to prototype everything. It forces you to structure your code, at least a little. Since programs take a while to compile, unlike an interpreted language, it forces you to think about what you're typing instead of just trying different things until something works. IMHO the "shoot yourself in the foot" aspect of C++ is a very good thing -- it forces you to learn syntax instead of leaning on your compiler.

If I was going to teach a kid a language (yeah right) I'd probably start them in Java. There are loads of good introductory books, and it is relatively easy to do "cool" things with the standard library. But then after they'd worked out the urge to create little dancing applets, I'd have them build an LFS box. Once they'd achieved a usable environment, I'd have them learn assembly, then C, then C++. After that, any other language would be pretty trivial, because they'd really understand what was going on under the hood.

It's only after you know how things work that you can start to think about learning "programming". Yes, I probably sound like an elitist bastard, but I'm sick of how they have kids build model volcanoes and call it "science". That's not science. That's not even close. If you want to teach science, teach math, for God's sake. That way, they'll have a fighting chance when they have to take freshman physics.

Too many distros try to give the user everything including the kitchen sink. What I miss is a bare metal option that installs a truly minimalist installation in the smallest footprint possible. I gave up trying to strip down a modern distro to the bare metal years ago. One of these days I'll try installing the linux from scratch.

picking a distro, much harder than you think for the non-initiate.

Depends what you want...different people like their Linux different ways, from what I've seen.

Purely home made:- Linux From Scratch. Here is also a guide I wrote on what you'll need to know first if you want to go down that path.

For pre-cooked meat, but where you still have to add your own sides and sauce:-
Slackware with pkgsrc.

Entirely pre-cooked and delivered, but still very tasty:- Ubuntu.

Where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?

There is a set specification which outlines what a UNIX system is. As far as admins complaining about Linux not being "standard" it often genuinely is the case with a number of binary Linux distributions that a number of the utilities outlined by that specification are not installed by default, but rather are viewed by the distribution makers as being optional extras. They do this in an attempt to increase user-friendliness or save disk space, but there are times when for some people anyway it can simply make life more difficult.

The BSDs are designed to include all of these utilities as part of the core system, so admins and other users who want them can rely on them being there; there is no uncertainty as there can be with Linux distros.

For basic desktop use, Ubuntu is fine, and has been praised for its' user-friendliness. If however there comes a time when you wish to learn more, (which may be of benefit if you wish, as you say, to gain Linux-related employment) I strongly recommend investigating the Linux From Scratch Project. They release an online book which will teach you how to assemble a Linux system yourself that is largely compliant with the abovementioned specification, at least as far as the installed utilities are concerned. If that sounds intimidating right now, I'd also recommend this which is a guide that I wrote for someone else a while back. That will give you the background knowledge you need before attempting to complete the Linux From Scratch book.

After you've done that and used Linux for a while, (months, years, whatever) I'd definitely recommend installing FreeBSD at some point, if only for the sake of contrasting the two and rounding out your knowledge. You will then be in a very good position to determine which system you wish to make your environment of choice, long term.

Linux Documentation Project ~ Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition ~ Linux Newbie Administration Guide ~ LinuxCommand.org ~ Linux From Scratch ~ FreeBSD Hypertext Man Pages for Red Hat 9

Linux From Scratch. This is a project which maintains and outlines the knowledge of how to manually compile a Linux system from source code. In other words, it's about as fundamental as you can get.

The project is also run by some really awesome people...probably the most decent that I've come across in the Linux community.

If you really want to know this stuff, there's no substitute for Linux From Scratch. You build the entire system piece-by-piece.

• How Linux Works
• Running Linux
• Beginning Linux Programming

LFS (Linux From Scratch) is another way.

Honestly though, like stated above, once you understand that Linux basically treats everything like a file... you can fix pretty much anything. As far as a good reference or tips site. Google. 99% of the time, a quick cut and paste of an error will direct you to the right place. (That is if you don't understand it right away.)

Check out http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/ and http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/

Try creating a distro of your own and you should get a handle on the mysteries of the OS. If you don't have spare hardware check out virtualbox.org and try creating your lfs distro on a virtual x86 computer

Check out http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/ and http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/

Try creating a distro of your own and you should get a handle on the mysteries of the OS. If you don't have spare hardware check out virtualbox.org and try creating your lfs distro on a virtual x86 computer

LFS

I've heard of a C compiler written in BASH. The capacity of a programming language to suck depends significantly on the intended application. AREXX would probably work quite well to write a Linuxfromscratch, Amigafromscratch, or AROSfromscratch installer.

Amiga's mascots have alwasy been sooooooooooo s3xy. =D

I thought that Linux from scratch was the easiest distro on the planet...

Lighten up a little, Batman. Nostalgia has a great purpose in life. We can always mod the case (make our own C-kin) and the internal cards at a later date. I'm guessing it's not all integrated.

I want one of each so that I can test a home-grown aLFS in parallel.

You're right about the Giana Sisters C-kin. WTH?

That's understating. When my Compaq V2000 arrived it was absolutely fettered with junk that filled nearly 20 gigs of the HD. A smooth reinstallation--careful to update drivers and not actually run vendor installs which often dump on the crapware--had the XP install to around 2 gigs and system performance was much more responsive. Not that the responsiveness of the XP install was the main point. The main point was to take back the HD space for LFS and Debian.

# ./configure
# make
# make rpm
# rpm --install $PROGRAM.rpm

# ./configure
# make
# make install

# emerge -av $PROGRAM

Does it run Linux From Scratch?

I'm homeless. While I have experience building LFS (since 2.2) and could accomplish the task you suggest my laptop was stolen over the summer and I have no way to buy the USB key or access a system which could be used to build it.

So, what's a good distro to move to now?

> shocked that ... execs would lie about anything like this

<insert well-known HomelessinLaJolla typical political spiel here>

Even I am beginning to grow weary of reading about the thousands of different ways in which the population is being controlled by one single issue: debt.

What we need is a really messy revolution. Automobiles can be restored from scratch. I can build Linux from scratch since about version 2.2. I've dissected and analyzed the inner working of world politics for six or seven years.

I'll be more than happy to restructure this world properly. It'd really be very simple: quit letting the landlords play golf with the people who dictate the salaries.

I find the intricacies of the BSD system very confusing, and those of the Unix systems in general too. This is why linux from scratch has been of invaluable help for me. Is there some way to install a BSD system starting from kernel, libc, init, boot loader etcetc?

I never would have survived those dark days of 28k-baud modems without vi! And what a blast to input a series of commands, and then sit back and watch as the screen caught up!

Most of the linux admins I work with all use vi in their day-to-day work. I've known a few developers that work in Emacs, but that seems to be falling off with the rise of free IDEs like Eclipse. I think in fact Emacs was built for a world that is becoming non-existent.

But if you really want to prove someone a true 'nix-head, take vi off the system. Cool people can do it all with echo ;) See Linux from Scratch - http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

If Make it work. Make it simple is your goal, then just use Ubuntu. You don't need to look any further. Not everyone has the right personality for a distro such as Linux from Scratch. That would be for someone who wants to better understand how it is all put together and how it all works. Building your house from scratch isn't for everyone either, although some people have that kind of "build it yourself" personality. I built my own computer from scratch partially as a learning experience. Not everyone has a "build your own computer from scratch" kind of personality either. I do understand your point though.

In Linux there is some disagreement about whether it is easier for an experienced user to use point-and-click GUI utilities or by knowing how to manually edit the various configuration files manually from the command line. Some Linux geeks also seem want to prove their superiority in the geek pecking order by using a more expert oriented distro such as Slackware or Gentoo. Perhaps they should just get a life instead.

I used Slackware Linux for about 3 years on my home computer. I liked it, but it is not what I would recommend for a newbie. I have switched to using a combination of Ubuntu and Kubuntu at home. Slackware is for serious Linux geeks who dislike using point-and-click GUI interfaces for most administrative tasks. Slackware users prefer to directly edit the various configuration files. They dislike having too much stuff configured automatically for them, they prefer the control of doing it themselves instead. However, if your goal is to learn more about Linux a slightly more difficult distro such as Slackware or Slamd64 might be appropriate. Slackware would also be great for a server although, Ubuntu, Red Hat, CentOS and other distros do that well too. Linux from Scratch would be even more of a learning experience.

When installing new programs, Slackware does not automatically do dependency checking. If I had used the Slackware Slapt-get program to download and install the software packages it would then have done some dependency checking but I doubt that it would have done it as well as apt-get does it in a Debian derived distro such as Ubuntu, Kubuntu or Mepis. For desktop use a newbie would find Ubuntu, Kubuntu or Mepis much easy to install and configure. Ubuntu also has Synaptic which is an easy to use point-and-click GUI front-end for apt-get. It can be used to install or uninstall free Linux software from the hundreds of free programs from the Ubuntu repostiories on the Internet. Not only that but, the Ubuntu or the Kubuntu desktops have a more polished feel than Slackware does.

A Windows user probably would wonder what dependencies are. Most Linux programmers don't like to reinvent the wheel when they write a new program. There are already many free GPL licensed programs that can do much of what they need. They rely on those other programs to do some tasks, so those programs are dependencies and must already be there or be installed too. In Windows, commercial software companies do not share each others programs as dependencies. The apt-get package manager in Debian is the one that is best known for automatically resoling dependencies. Ubuntu inherits apt-get and Synaptic from Debian.

LFS would be much better for a newbie!

Our loaded cost for a Windows machine is cheaper than that for Linux. I'm a die hard linux evangelist, but the numbers don't lie.

Then go here and learn how to create your own system. You can also use such services as this and others in order to stay on top of security vulnerabilities. There is also this site which talks about designing network infrastructure.

You'll need to do some homework, and it might seem daunting at first, but the amount of money you could save surely makes this at least worth thinking about. I can't understand why this unique ability that FOSS gives you (to strike out completely on your own, independent of a vendor) isn't capitalised on by more organisations. There is absolutely no need to pay a Linux vendor a single cent if you don't want to...it is entirely a choice.

Old-timers used to do this routinely, but for relative noobs like me, linuxfromscratch.org nothing beats the joy of rolling your own distro, boot-strapping the compiler, etc. I suppose, those old-timers still find joy in doing this.

I would use LFS as an embedded OS.

This follows on from my last post on here, and it was something I was thinking about only a few moments before I saw the article.

AFAIK, Autoconf's version number hasn't changed in at least two years. I can also remember looking into it a few months back and discovering that at the time anyway, GNU Make only had two maintainers.

The FSF has completely lost focus, IMHO. Core elements of the toolchain are not being actively maintained, and several of the people who were maintaining them have been employed by Red Hat, causing a conflict of interest which cannot be conducive to Linux's long-term wellbeing...or at least that of the GNU project, for those of you who like to split hairs.

I've had FSF advocates reply to me before and talk about how the anti-DRM crusade is important...fine and good, but let me mention something which I think is even more important.

For all that Stallman has written and said, and continues to say, about software freedom, said freedom isn't going to matter much if the software itself ceases to exist. I'm also not talking about KDE or anything on the surface, either...I'm talking about the core knowledge behind how to assemble a Linux system, and the tools themselves which are used to do that. Yes, I know the Linux From Scratch project will immediately be pointed to, perhaps...but aside from them and perhaps Gentoo, who else is there?

Aside from Debian, Gentoo, and Slackware, the rest of the major distributions are corporate, and created by people with far more interest in imitating Windows as closely as possible than in technical integrity. You only need to visit their forums or look at the track record for security of some of them to know that. Red Hat began Linux's decomposition process, but the other companies are continuing it. It's happened quietly, but on a number of levels, I honestly believe that Linux's roots are seriously endangered, currently...and as any botanist will be able to tell you, if the roots are compromised, although it won't happen overnight, there's a very good chance that the entire tree will eventually die.

I'd ask anyone who reads this and who cares about Linux's future to go and build Linux From Scratch at least once...as that information will only survive if it exists within a large enough group of people. I've heard about the concepts of installfests, which are great...but if it could be arranged, I think source installfests, or "compilefests" could be fantastic as well. I feel that on a technical level, rather than on a political one, there needs to be a return to some core principles:-

a) Compilation from source, so that we're actually *using* source code rather than just talking about it. Source code availability is Linux's fundamental strength...there are any number of people in the corporate world who'd love a scenario where Linux was purely binary only, a la Windows, because they know how much that would disempower Linux users if they could bring it about. For all the talk about the convenience of binary rpms and debs, use of these is actually "helping" Linux to death. Whining about binary drivers on the one hand and using apt on the other is simply rank hypocrisy, IMHO...and it also doesn't genuinely solve either problem.

b) Individuals with sufficient technical ability once more creating their own systems on a wide basis, and not merely relying on predigested, corporate distributions which are often severely crippled for the purposes of compiling source, use deeply unreliable and broken package management systems, and which do not adhere to standards. Decentralisation used to be another of Linux's major strengths...again, something else which we're losing. The ability to "roll your own," is still there, but if we don't keep using it, we *will* lose it...there are a lot of people out there who as I said are waiting for any opportunity they can get to take such an ability away from us.

c) A commitment as individuals to the adherence to such basic things a

Hm, if people think Gentoo is hard, I wonder what they think of a distro like LFS?

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

Free software goes on out the window, when some figures out that they actually get what they pay for.

I had a similar problem, but not completely identical.

One or two years ago, I did the same thing - purchased parts for a new machine (AMD64), assembled, etc., and installed Linux From Scratch on it (yes, I'm a masochist). Anyway, in addition to actual hardware/memory burn-in tests that I ran on it, the machine essentially had a steady GCC compile test for the better part of two weeks; so I KNEW the hardware was good.

Try to install Windows XP on it (my usual MO for a single machine is to install vanilla, then install the service packs) to dual-boot for the couple of games I play that won't work in Wine - nope, BSOD. Usually at the point where it's reading/writing files to the HD for the first time. Tried nearly everything - custom motherboard drivers from the manufacturer, BIOS updates, you name it, wouldn't install. Error message on the BSOD indicates it's faulty hardware.

The solution: I created a slipstreamed XP SP1 install CD, and magically everything worked fine. Still does to this day. I guess there was some sort of glitch in one of the Windows built-in drivers that didn't like my hardware, and they fixed it in the service pack.

If you want to know better, install a LFS system.
I did it once, and even used it on my machine at home for many months, before I went back to Slackware.

It's really instructive, if you want to know how Linux is organized.
I, for one, feel unconfortable having lots of software running in my system that I don't know what it is, what's their purpose, and if I can turn it off nor not. LFS made me know which is which. Also, it gives great understanding of the boot process.
I highly recommend it: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

Oh, so you mean LFS? I did that a few times myself. Gentoo approximates LFS with a package installer tacked on. REAL masochists run ./configure && make && make install for every package (and twice for gcc, binutils, and glibc!)

Real nerds build their own distro.

In all seriousness, what would you suggest instead as a way to learn about Linux internals?

LFS would almost certainly be a good place to start assuming you're meaning the whole GNU/Linux package and not just the Linux kernel.

Maybe the attitude has changed by now, but MPlayer still got a black eye because manually trying to install it an exercise in frustration.

I remember trying to build MPlayer (and it's deps) from source a few years ago, it certainly wasn't an easy experience. That being said, in recent years I've been building it on LFS/BLFS systems following their instructions and found it works perfectly. I've also used those instructions (with some modifications) to build it on distros where I wasn't happy with the packaged MPlayer.

Being a noob to linux I read this part of the thread with interest. I'd love to see that list of e-books and resources. I love learning. So I followed the above link to:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

That's pretty funny. Not the best place for a newbie. I want to make a sandwich and you send me to a lab to genetically engineer my own special franken-wheat with which to make bread!

On the other hand I posted a similar comment here recently and got two helpful tips. One explained in very fine and incomprehensible detail what I should do and the other gave me a link to something that would do it for me.

The REAL barrier to widespread adoption of linux is that the divide between the geeks and the rest of the world is far deeper than anyone cares to admit. With linux I am a noob, but I've had a computer since I was 9 (1979) and I've been on the internet since 1988. Everyone I know comes to ME for tech support. I find myself saying... "right click on the... uh well there are two buttons on your mouse put the cursor... yeh the pointer on the icon... you know the picture of the folder. that's right and right click on it. see the context menu? select properties and then read it to me" Those people will never install linux on anything. "Download the iso and burn the image to a CD" might as well be in greek, and THAT's trivial compared to, "You need to install libdvdcss2 and may need to use hdparm to enable dma (hdparm -d 1 /dev/dvd)."

don't have enough patience to teach too many people about Linux, especially from scratch.

I'm still pretty new to the linux scene, but I don't understand why Oracle would even think of BUYING a linux distro. I'm sure there's more to it, but the only difference I have seen between Slackware, Debian, RedHat, and DSL (just the ones i'd tried) is 1) their standard apps 2) how conf files are stored/handled and 3)their package management. If Oracles only goal is to create a custom OS centered around their DB, they might as well head over to linuxfromscratch.org and build their own custom distro. otherwise, how is it truly going to be a custom OS? It will just be a distro with Oracle included.

find me a Linux distribution that lets you customer a Linux kernel at install time.
*Raises hand* Me me! that one is easy!

Gentoo, slackware

Or what about NeoMagiclux

Neat uh?

Look, the problem with the article and almost all the articles is that they try to add labels and properties to "Linux" as an operating system. Linux is not an operating system it is a kernel, Mandriva, Gentoo or whatever you want is an operating system, some of them are Fat, some of them are bloated, some or them are insecure and whatever.

But you can not say that "Linux is a fat operating system" because linux is not an operating system.

1) Gates knows his garbage literally can't compete with linux on that hardware 2) Linux fits on a floppy. GNU/Linux doesn't have a size ... it is undefined . 3) You can build your own distribution following step by step guides from the LFS project 4) Even a relatively bloated GNU/Linux distribution blows the doors off of Gates' Garbage

Gates: You spread some FUD around; I'll fund another round ....
Negroponte: Your a wonderfully magnanimous philanthropist, Bill ... Everybody thinks so ...

1) Gates knows his garbage literally can't compete with linux on that hardware 2) Linux fits on a floppy. GNU/Linux doesn't have a size ... it is undefined . 3) You can build your own distribution following step by step guides from the LFS project 4) Even a relatively bloated GNU/Linux distribution blows the doors off of Gates' Garbage

Gates: You spread some FUD around; I'll fund another round ....
Negroponte: Your a wonderfully magnanimous philanthropist, Bill ... Everybody thinks so ...

So do I go with Linux or Desktop BSD? I'm leaning toward Ubuntu simply because there is more support.

Check out http://slax.linux-live.org/, it's a 185 MB distro. Or you can roll your own.