Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Gerard Beekmans wrote: > >> Take a look at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/wiki/LFSFuture > > In some cases, the changes proposed only require general agreement of what to > do > and the accomplishment of the task would be relatively easy. In others, the > changes would be pervasive throughout the book. > > This is my take on the issues: > > 1. Educational content > > This is still the most important aspect of the book. Adding more educational > content is always good. A couple of things that I would like to see is > elaboration of the meaning of what the configuration of packages mean with > the > emphasis on udev and the kernel. A discussion of modules vs compiling in > drivers would be useful.
Can I also chirp in here? During the previous bout of words about LFSng, I made some suggestions regarding how the education aspect could be enhanced. There was some positive comments from a few other readers/contributors so I'd like it to be considered/discussed further please. This would change the structure of "the book(s)" and the way the groups are currently setup (LFS/BLFS) considerably. Here is the original text from 29/02/08: So perhaps the LFS project becomes some sort of "course" (and I use the term loosely). The "modules" of which, could be something like: * Learning the basics (Command Line, cmmi, security, toolchain, blah blah) * Scripting/Automating (A subject about how LFS gets built, the tools, the processes involved etc) [This is where PM would probably go too] * Basic Useful Applications (A sort of mini BLFS where we get networking, X and maybe Firefox/TB type apps installed) * Building your Distro (Completing the core build-out adding your chosen apps and utilities and configuring) * Making your Distro distributable (How to make a liveCD of "your distro", how to make an installer script...) ---- So, I was trying to think at high level about how to keep, and hopefully improve, the educational value of LFS and to separate the current process into "course modules" at sensible points to allow them to be done "standalone" as it were. By splitting up it this way, I think we could get a wider community involvement as interested parties can 'scratch their own itch' without having to know about everything else. You never know, if we got something like this right, there could follow a financial opportunity to support the not-for-profit foundation idea by providing on-line testing/certificates etc... Just a random thought. Al -- The way out is open! http://www.theopensourcerer.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
