SPAM-LOW: Re: Spring Ahead

Ken Moffat ken at
Fri Feb 2 13:04:02 PST 2007

On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:30:04PM -0600, Chuck Rhode wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote this on Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:03:16AM +0000.  My
> reply is below.
> > For a desktop, 5.0 is so old it isn't funny.  The issue exists for
> > anybody using glibc < 2.3.6.
> Gosh, you talk like Bill Gates!
 Ouch.  Still, at least I'm only SPAM-LOW so far in your system.
Seriously, I have something a little newer than 5.1 on one of my
boxes (a few minor version upgrades, with recent 2.6 kernels and
static devices).  I had occasion to use that system a couple of weeks
ago when the power supply in my server failed (my other boxes wanted
dhcp).  The versions were at-latest gnome-2.2 and kde-3.1.something.
The browser pre-dated firefox.  Ignoring the lack of support for many
of the versions I had used, the user interface felt old and clunky.

 If you can keep your applications up to date without rebuilding the
underlying LFS, then good for you, and I'm sure it works ok.  Maybe
your systems were more advanced than mine, but I've only recently
achieved as much functionality as I want on my desktops.  The thing
is, once you start building from source, you are responsible for your
own upgrades and security fixes.  With the recent speed of development
in desktop applications, two years is a long time to go without
rebuilding.  I see you've upgraded applications, so why not refresh
the whole system - I can guarantee there's a lot still to learn
about how the system is put together.

> Full disclosure: I do think the Ubuntu live CD is kind of
> cute, and I am tempted to try installing that instead of LFS next time
> if I can suppress my visceral abhorrence of packaged software.
 I have every confidence that you'll learn to hate synaptic and the
various 'verses, but it does form an adequate host system for LFS ;-)

das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-support mailing list