Slashdot Mirror
How to Build Your Own Linux Distribution
Shelly writes "Go to the source to learn Linux basics and build the right Linux for you. Linux From Scratch (LFS) and its descendants represent a new way to teach users how the Linux operating systems work. LFS is based on the assumption that compiling a complete operating system piece by piece not only teaches how the operating system works but also allows an independent operator to build systems for speed, footprint, or security."
With LFS reaching 6.0 a while ago, how is this news exactly?
who succeed in getting their own build running will learn a lot from this experience. The others will switch to Windows. - Hubbah
LFS is a nice way to learn more about Linux, I built LFS on a box a few years ago, and probably learned more about Linux doing so than I ever could have just from using it, or just from reading books targed at a specific distribution.
That said though, I don't think it's very practicle for a system that you actually want to use for day to day use. Building a Linux system from scratch takes a lot of time, and then you have to keep track of all of the security patches for all of the packages you used, and if you want to upgrade one of the core libraries for some reason you end up having to rebuild most of the system.
Building a distro for scratch is a fun way to learn, and I encourage hobbiests who are interested in learning how a linux system works to do so, but unless you have a critical mass of people contributing patches, helping with stuff, etc, then you end up spending all your time keeping the distro up to date, and no time actually using the system.
Which, if your just in it for the hobbiest aspect isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I still think it's generally impracticle if you want to have an actually usuable distribution.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
You're right - this is a mixed blessing. Sure, making your own distro is great and all, but it can only make things more confusing for new Linux users (and believe me, the more the better). It's a great idea, to be able to build your own distribution - don't get me wrong - but as I said, some users could be fazed, and yet others put off from Linux by malicious distributions - better, methinks, to stick with 'safe' ones such as SUSE, Mandrake, Fedora Core, etc., and to a lesser extent Gentoo.
LFS has always been aimed at people who wish to build their own linux system from the ground up. It's never been (and I shouldn't have thought it ever will be) aimed at people who just want a working system.
Don't worry, I don't think the guys who write the LFS book will ever get the idea into their heads that promoting this to general users would be a good idea.
Silly rabbit
I really don't see how anyone could use LFS as anything but "build it, learn how it works, delete it". There are so many security bugs fixed from package release to package release, it would be a full time job to keep track of all of them. Then, the ONE package you overlooked gets compromised and you're owned.
It's probably one of the most common security problems - making a system secure is very hard. Even security experts fail at this. Doing it yourself is only going to make you repeat the errors which have been corrected in other distros.
The only security you could get is security through obscurity, which is not security.
Then again, some people don't want LFS on a different platform but "their favorite ($insert favorite distro here$) linux distro" on a different platform. Some distros are only packaged for a few architectures.
Slightly OT, but I can remember when MS WinNT was available for the Alpha, Intel, MIPS and PPC platform.
The real strength of linux (alright, GNU/linux) is that since source code is available for virtually everything, your favorite distribution can be built on your favorite platform. The real sticking point, in my book, are nasty OEM manufactureres that insist upon providing binary-only drivers for only one or two architectures. Theo (of OpenBSD fame) is correct in chiding these OEMs about their drivers -- it just isn't right.
Re-visiting the LFS scenario every year or two, for you distro-monkeys, should be a requirement of the "Order of The Penguin" membership ...
I don't understand this "Cult of the Difficult" that seems to be very pervasive in the Open Source community. Software has always been about making the difficult easier. We design and write software to make tasks faster or more easily performed or, in some cases like the spreadsheet, possible.
So I don't see what the fascination is with trifling with the minutia of a system just for kicks. I guess if it's for your own kicks, that's fine, but comments like yours above are very common in the computer technology industry. "If you don't understand the root of this, you will never understand this."
Understanding every little bit of something is not a requirement for using it. For most things, it shouldn't be. And for the best-written software, it isn't. Why, then, do people think that getting your hands dirty in Linux source code is such a good thing for everyone? It seems like a colossal waste of time for most people who would rather get their work done.
I had the same reaction when some Mac fanatic tried to tell me how much more user-friendly MacOS was in one breath and then turn around and tell someone that they need to manually increase the amount of RAM allotted to some random program in the next breath. That isn't user-friendliness. That's OS-retardation.
A good piece of software should anticipate what you want to do and make it easy to do it. It should handle things that you don't want to handle, and it should optimize things that you do often. It should, to steal a phrase from Apple, Just Work.
I don't want to fiddle with Linux's innards any more than I want to fiddle with my own. I am happy with GIGO and am willing to accept it as a black box, but if something goes wrong, I'd rather call a doctor who spent 8 years of their life studying the black box than trying to do that studying on my own.
Since when did it become law for everyone to release every distro they make? I don't think this is going to be as much of a problem as you make out. The newbie linux user is more likely to end up with one of the 'safe' distros anyway.
We probably don't need any more general purpose distributions, but the value in a kit for making a new distribution is for specialised applications. There are various router/firewall projects and a couple of DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) packages that come in to this category, for example. There's lots of potential for whole applications that boot from a CDROM like Knoppix and can be temporarily used on an PC without touching what was installed on the HD.
I built an LFS system a while back. It was great fun, and if nothing else, it taught me how to compile from source - something I'd always been a bit afraid of doing before. After all, if I messed up, how did I delete the files? The package manager wouldn't do it for me. . .
Some people are saying it teaches you a lot, and others are saying it's no better than any other distro.
I think installing LFS is like buying home gym equipment. Buying an excercise bike isn't going to make you fit, installing LFS isn't going to teach you a great deal.
All either does is provide you with an opportunity to get what you want. You CAN use excercise equipment to get fit; You CAN use LFS to learn a lot about Linux.
If you just follow the LFS instructions and leave it at that, you'll probably be wasting your time. If you take the time to read around what you're doing, so you understand exactly WHY you're doing what you're doing, you'll learn a great deal.
And if you go on to Beyond LFS, you'll come to truly appreciate package managers. When you've done the "To install A, I need B, which requires C, which relies on D. . . " thing a few times, you'll REALLY understand why package management is such a big topic. The amount of running around I had to do to get FVWM running. . .
I liked my LFS install, but once I had overcome the challenge of getting it working, it just became a chore to KEEP it working. So I switched to Gentoo, which is no effort at all to keep up-to-date.
But I'm glad I did LFS first.
So.. it has come to this
I don't understand this "Cult of the Difficult" that seems to be very pervasive in the Open Source community.
.. and this is true of all endeavours, not just computers, not just linux, not just windows.
/tmp dir, let alone figure out how to reboot...)
anything which increases the level of a persons understanding of a scenario, makes them more competent. competence in this industry is an honored and valuable condition.
Understanding every little bit of something is not a requirement for using it
true, the only 'requirement' is that it be working and usable in the first place. but if you're a linux person, and you like these things, you should not be afraid to explore and learn by tweaking/crashing/building. the reason for this is, that the more competent you are, the more stable your system will be
hey, it works for sailing too. it works for raising kids. it works for driving cars. thus: it works for linux.
get under the hood, change your own oil, build your own binutils. it will help you achieve a better state of operation, and its really not that hard to do, if you do it often enough...
(the reason you might feel like things get 'culty' about this issue is that, in fact, there is a corollary: the "Cult of Ease" has resulted in countless generations of incompetent slobs unable to even wipe their own
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I love Gentoo myself but I don't know how much it really teaches you about how Linux works. Most of the nitty gritty parts about installing packages is hidden by the Portage system. The only difference between typing in "emerge kde" vs. "apt-get install kde" is that it takes alot longer and you see a ton of compilation messages. The directory layout is chosen for you, the dependencies are installed automatically for you, etc. How much do you really learn watching hundreds of pages of GCC messages whizzing by?
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
I think your missing the point.
LFS is not for a user like yourself that does not care about the minutia, its for users who want to have a good grasp of the underlying system. You'll be amazed on how much you'll learn about Linux by piecing it together yourself. The knowledge that you gain is incredibly helpful later on as a professional when your fixing some problem with very deep causes. I strongly reccomend that any professiaonal using Linux on a regular basis install LFS. You don't need to use it for a real system - i don't and wouldn't.
I'm not looking for complication, i'm looking for understanding.
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?