Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Some people do want to use LFS in production. There are only two ways to deal > with this situation: make LFS work perfectly, or drive them away from LFS, > e.g., > by including somewhere in the preface some concrete missing features that > make > LFS unsuitable for production use, and give some foundations to the fact that > these features are really required.
I understand your motive Alex, but I think the inherent problem with this stance is that 'unsuitable for production use' is a relative term. For some environments, all that is required for a Linux system to be suitable for a particular production use is that it handles whatever tasks it has been assigned reliably and consistently. In one small office that I provided service for, they needed a reliable network file server with no other real needs - essentially a drop box for multiple people. That equated to LFS with a minimal Samba configuration. That machine has had an uptime of over a year and it gets used daily. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
