Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
>> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
>> degrading the quality of LFS)
>>
>> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keep
support wrote:
> Multiple 'windows' don't require X, personally i logon to 2 or 3 virtual
> terminals, carry out the lfs build work in terminal 1 and have a copy of
> the book open via lynx in terminal 2, then i can simply select with the
> mouse to highlight and right click in VT1 to paste. To op
Laurent HOAREAU wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork a écrit :
>
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project?
>>>
> (Consider that a
>
>>> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS
>>>
> LiveCD by its nature is
>
>>> degrading
Jeremy Huntwork a écrit :
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project?
(Consider that a
>> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS
LiveCD by its nature is
>> degrading the quality of LFS)
>>
>> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in
ke
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> So we see at least two non-empty camps. One wants a strictly minimal CD, and
> one
> wants packages beyond it. The most "democratic" solution would be to make two
> CDs (and that's, in fact, the origin of the talks about package management),
> but
> we don't have
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
~snip~
>
> I could let this thread continue for some more time, but I get the
> impression that the ratio of votes will continue approximately the same.
as with the last time this subject came up :)
seems that while majority like the livecd project, getting more support
is
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:46:45PM +0100, Thomas Trepl wrote:
> What I wished to have is a simple, clean BootCD with no
> SchnickSchnack (how is that in English? Maybe "extra stuff") on it
I think the best English idiom would be "bells and whistles". But
thanks for the deutsche (?) idiom! I like
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
>> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
>> degrading the quality of LFS)
>>
>> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keepin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> degrading the quality of LFS)
>
> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive?
Thank you all for you
nick levandoski wrote:
>
Those were good comments.
> ps
>
> I would be glad to help with the LFS LiveCD project, the problem is im
> not an expert but i did learn alot.
Ex=has been "spurt"=drip under pressure. ;-) So don't worry, your
future "expertise" is ahead of, not behind, you.
>
--
Alexander E. Patrakov a écrit :
> Howard_apfc6 wrote:
>
>> - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users
create 90% of support requests.
> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be
filtered out, e.g., by telling
> them to
2008/2/25, Thomas Trepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Am Montag, 25. Februar 2008 16:37:13 schrieb Jeremy Huntwork:
> > **lot of things**
>
> I'd like to see the LiveCD project in just a bit different light.
> Personally,
> I would like so see it as a CDFS project (CD from scratch) where
I know im probably shooting this reply in the wrong direction but its early
and im late for work. Unfortunantly im relitivley new the project and linux
in general. After many unsuccessful attempts to build the LFS system from
the livecd I finally did it (took me while to figure it out) but to get
Matthias Feichtinger wrote:
> Am Montag, 25. Februar 2008 18:59 schrieb Wit:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>
>>> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
>>> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>>>
>>> 1) It is currently unmaintained
>>
Am Montag, 25. Februar 2008 18:59 schrieb Wit:
>Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
>> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>>
>> 1) It is currently unmaintained
>
>ISTM this point is
International Soc
Am Montag, 25. Februar 2008 19:00 schrieb Jeremy Huntwork:
>When was the last time you used the CD?
6 weeks ago and I tried Knoppix, SuSE, Debian4 and
WindowsXP, none worked. None! But the Live CD did it and after some
adjustment, Debian could start too. Because I couldn't open the box ...
--
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Besides, the LFS LiveCD has no real technical benefits as a host, except that
> it
> is preconfigured and already contains the packages - but why not download
> them
> separately in a town with a broadband connection, put onto a flash drive, and
> use with your
On Monday 25 February 2008 2:47:12 pm Hugo Grauls wrote:
[putolin]
> > JH
>
> Without the LiveCD I would never have been able to get LFS6.2 up and
> running. Biggest worry is to have the right basic tools at hand to build
> from scratch, i.e. the adequate releases of GCC, linker, header files
> e
Hi Jeremy,
Am Montag, 25. Februar 2008 16:37:13 schrieb Jeremy Huntwork:
> **lot of things**
I'd like to see the LiveCD project in just a bit different light. Personally,
I would like so see it as a CDFS project (CD from scratch) where the *howto*
to build a bootable CD is the main focus and le
On Mon, Feb 25, at 09:37 Bauke Jan Douma wrote:
>
> I personally have not used a LiveCD, but reading this whole
> longwinded discussion, it appears to me that one might first
> try to (re)establish a few goals and purposes for the LiveCD.
>
> For instance (some of these mentioned here partially o
Jeremy Huntwork wrote on 25-02-08 16:37:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Wit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > Eric Stout wrote:
> >> (that is, tools for raid, not the specific package "raidtools".. mdadm is
> >> much better in my opinion)
> >
> > When was the last time you used the CD? mdadm has been availab
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3
Wit wrote:
> Not to be presumptive here, but don't get the cart before the horse. I'm
> sure there are many good ideas available from both you and the potential
> user community. But first focus only on getting a "Yea" or "Nay" about
> the desirability and viability of the project. Those who hav
support wrote:
> As for community involvement, if there was an easy
> way to see a list of things to be done, i'm sure more people would get
> involved, at the moment the contribute page on the website doesn't offer
> any way to get involved in the development.
Good point. Noted and will look into
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Eric Stout wrote:
>
>> But main stream distros these days have a lot more tools available to them
>> than the LiveCD can even dream of (simple technological fact due to the
>> storage capacity of the medium; CD/DVD versus HD) and typically include a
>> very simple means
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Wit wrote:
>> Follow the KISS principal, not the inverse KISS principal (i.e Keep it
>> Stupid, Simple). ;-)
>
> Yeah, don't get me wrong, I wasn't offering to add more items. On a
> related post in another list I was already proposing to make the next CD
> bare-bones
Wit wrote:
>
>
> It is more than a convenience. You don't draw files with vinegar, but
s/files/flies/# Freudian slip
> with honey. You don't draw new community members by making it harder for
> them to accomplish even a limited education goals, but by "aiding and
> abetting" their efforts
Wit wrote:
> Follow the KISS principal, not the inverse KISS principal (i.e Keep it
> Stupid, Simple). ;-)
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I wasn't offering to add more items. On a
related post in another list I was already proposing to make the next CD
bare-bones and design a better core system. If
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Eric Stout wrote:
>> (that is, tools for raid, not the specific package "raidtools".. mdadm is
>> much better in my opinion)
>
> When was the last time you used the CD? mdadm has been available on it
> for a long time. Or were you saying that there are other tools it is
> > I think there is an unwarranted aversion to support requests in this
> > community. If LFS is truly about education, it should welcome helping
> > users through the experience, instead of pushing them away. If anything,
> > this is more argument to have the FAQ kept up to date so that it is eas
> > But main stream distros these days have a lot more tools available to them
> > than the LiveCD can even dream of (simple technological fact due to the
> > storage capacity of the medium; CD/DVD versus HD) and typically include a
> > very simple means of installing what tools you don't have. In
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> Howard_apfc6 wrote:
>>> - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support
>> requests.
>> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be filtered out, e.g., by
>> t
Eric Stout wrote:
> But main stream distros these days have a lot more tools available to them
> than the LiveCD can even dream of (simple technological fact due to the
> storage capacity of the medium; CD/DVD versus HD) and typically include a
> very simple means of installing what tools you don't
> Eric Stout wrote:
> > (that is, tools for raid, not the specific package "raidtools".. mdadm is
> > much better in my opinion)
>
> When was the last time you used the CD? mdadm has been available on it
> for a long time. Or were you saying that there are other tools it is
> missing?
Two years a
Wit wrote:
> All MHO - inaccuracies and all.
>
>
No need to do that, at least not on my account. That was a very
interesting response and it has given me a good deal to consider. I
enjoyed the read thoroughly.
Thank you.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ
Eric Stout wrote:
> (that is, tools for raid, not the specific package "raidtools".. mdadm is
> much better in my opinion)
When was the last time you used the CD? mdadm has been available on it
for a long time. Or were you saying that there are other tools it is
missing?
--
JH
--
http://linu
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
ISTM this point is moot *if* the community wants to keep it. This is
rather a *result* of
> > - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>
> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support requests.
> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be filtered out, e.g., by telling
> them to install and configure a real distro.
Agreed.
> Besides, the LFS Liv
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Howard_apfc6 wrote:
>> - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>
> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support
> requests.
> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be filtered out, e.g., by
> telling
> them to install an
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Howard_apfc6 wrote:
> > - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>
> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support
> requests.
> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be
Howard_apfc6 wrote:
> - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support requests.
Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be filtered out, e.g., by telling
them to install and configure a real distro.
Besides, the LFS L
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed.
> I need to know two things:
> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project?
> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive?
>
I can only speak for myself, but I
Hello Everyone,
It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
1) It is currently unmaintained
2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
Linux system
3) It leads to less testing from other hos
44 matches
Mail list logo
