A few points and questions

jbauman at adsl-63-193-249-142.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net jbauman at adsl-63-193-249-142.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
Sat Sep 29 23:56:04 PDT 2001

On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:39:14AM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Sat, 29, Sep, 2001 at 11:31:19AM +0100, Paul Campbell wrote:
> > I have noticed a lot of the bugzilla stuff being worked on, that appears to 
> > be superflious to the system, like hdparam and the like.  Things that will 
> > not be on the mind of someone just finishing the LFS book.
> Depends - I have to use hdparm on one of my hard drives to disable DMA
> otherwise the damn machine crashes within about 10 minutes.  Also,
> hdparm isn't difficult to do - it's just that I haven't got around to
> doing it.
Yes, one man's "superfluous" software is another's mission critical
software. I think that as long as someone wants a piece of software to
be included and is willing to do the work, it should be included.

> > The other thing is, can you avoid the non-defacto-standard apps.  I hate the 
> > hints that say ... ".. everybody uses crond, but we going to tell you how to 
> > use fcron, or bcron or someother wacy item....)  With fcron I forgive them, 
> > but NOT djbdns, that apps really winds me up, that daemon tools foo breaks 
> > with too many traditions and ways of getting things done..  You have to 
> > create an entirely new way of running daemons, and the compile/install 
> > proceedure was written by someone who clearly has no regard for linux system 
> > standards.  

Or any other standards. It's not just Linux. DJB seems to think he knows 
how to do things better than anyone, and that everyone else should conform 
to him. The intriguing thing is, in many cases, he's right.

> > Some of the hints also hold too much personal preference rather 
> > than standard setup advice.

For example? I think constructive criticism should be welcome, and if
instructions can be made more generally appicable, it seems to me that
this would be a good thing.

> Djbdns is included as an *alternative* to bind.  Bind will be included
> just as soon as someone gets around to writing the instructions for it.
> Are you volunteering? ;-)
> Some people like "non-standard" apps.  Personally I use bind but that's
> my preference.  I happen to know that Jeff who wrote those instructions,
> prefers djbdns - this way, people can choose.
You betcha. I'll be tarred and feathered before I'll run that insecure, 
bloated piece of **** bind on my systems. It all depends on what you use 
your system for -- if you just want a workstation, then maybe you don't 
mind, but I'm running a firewall machine 24 x 7 and it's essential that 
it's completely secure. So while I agree with you that daemontools is an
unholy bitch, I run it because I haven't found the time to hack my
system to work with something else. Maybe one day I will, but in the
mean time, I've supplied us all with instructions on installing
daemontools that will make it completely FHS compliant. I still hate
what it does to the output of ps, but I'm willing to live with it for
the security that djbdns and qmail provide. People are going to be using
their systems for many different purposes, so I think choice and
different options are essential for this to be a truly useful project. 

I think to say we shouldn't include something on which the work has
already been done is a bit absurd. What is the point? Just to advance
our own biases? I think this project by its very nature must be
inclusive rather than exclusive. Just because I would never run bind or
sendmail doesn't mean I would ever argue for them not to be included.
They should definitely be included, but I sure hope there are
alternatives presented also.

> I'm not incredibally keen on specific artificial deadlines.  Look at LFS-3.0 - 
> we released it WHEN it was ready.  I agree that we need to release 1.0
> ASAP thought but I *don't* want it to be not worth releasing.  I'm not
> sure about releasing 1.0 with just X, KDE and Gnome.  I'd rather wait
> another 2 months and get a really good book out there.  Other people may
> (and probably will) disagree though.
Complete agreement here. On a personal level, I've got enough deadlines
and pressure at work -- I don't need it in what I do for enjoyment. If
we start making deadlines and such, I for one will be less likely to
contribute, and I think there may be others that feel the same. We all 
have more pressing things to do than this, and it gets done as we find 
time for it. More theoretically, I would much rather see something good
go out later than some rushed, slap-dash kind of thing put out there
just to put something out there. 

Jeff Bauman
jbauman at adsl-63-193-249-142.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net

"...the standard Windows remote administration tool -- your car."
	-- Hatch, Lee & Kurtz from "Hacking Linux Exposed"
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-book' in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-book mailing list