Martin Miehe wrote: > Among others there was one important reason for me to try LFS: It > seemed to be the best way to get a modern linux on an old computer. >
Maybe it is true, assuming that you build LFS on a faster computer and then transfer the whole contents of the filesystem. But it is certainly not the best way to update the old computer, because LFS lacks a package manager (i.e., you can't easily build packages on a fast computer and then deploy them on the slow one). > This is a very special feature, which is hard to find anywhere else. You simply didn't look well. Debian has this feature, too, and, unlike LFS, has a package manager. > And the LiveCD seems to be the best way to do LFS. > Again, misconception. LFS is buildable equally well from any modern system (if it isn't - that's a bug). And if you build it from your favourite distro, you get the benefit of being able to continue your regular work. Suppose that you get an e-mail message from your boss with a PDF attachment while building LFS from the LiveCD. Whoops, you need to reboot in order to view the attachment and answer correctly, and need to know how to continue your work after that. Not an issue at all if you build from a distro. Also, due to the use of compression, LFS LiveCD works slower than a regular distro. So, IMHO, there are no situations where the CD is really the best choice as an LFS installation CD. It may still be useful as a rescue CD, though. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
