Hello.
I'm debating whether to build my own LFS system, but I would like to see what others have turned out with to get an idea of the end product. So if you have completed LFS or BLFS, could you give a screen shot and some information about your system.
thanks

I don't use LFS, it's a little outdated in that it only addresses x86 architectures. If you're interested in rolling your own, I would recommend CLFS instead. You can follow up with CBLFS instead of BLFS.

Here are some images of my multilib CLFS system. I use Xorg-7.1 with XFCE-4.4 as my desktop environment.

Using the terminal -> http://img489.imageshack.us/my.php?i...fsxfce1pa8.png

Creating a UI in Glade -> http://img489.imageshack.us/my.php?i...fsxfce2vr2.png

Reading a post at LQ.org -> http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?i...fsxfce3ef5.png

Open Office spreadsheet -> http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?i...fsxfce4sd2.png

thanks. I didn't even know about CBLFS.
I know a bit of x86 NASM Assembler, C, C++, and basic Linux commands.
Is there anything else I should brush up on to be prepared for CLFS?
and...
does multilib mean your OS is able to run on SPARC, PPC, and x86 computers?
thanks for your post

Multilib means I can execute 32-bit and 64-bit applications. I have a x86_64 architecture (AMD64). CLFS does provide instructions for SPARC and PPC if you're interested. There are some suggested readings in the CLFS book in section iii.

One last question-
Is it possible to create an installer for your LFS system, so you can easily install it on several computers?(I will install my LFS on a network of computers once it is complete.)

Sure it is. I build a new system about twice a year at most and just do it all by hand. There is the ALFS project, but that's an Automated LFS. There is no automated version of CLFS yet. If you plan to go with CLFS, the easiest thing would be to use scripts. You might go to the Freenode.net #cross-lfs channel and see if anyone has some scripts they might let you use.

Sorry to butt in, but I am wondering of what use screenshots will be. Noone really completes BLFS, you are meant to read it in bits and pieces, in no particular order, taking what you need only. Everyones BLFS system will be completely different, depending on their desires and preferences. A screenshot will provide virtually no infomation, except perhaps what DE they use. What you are seeing may have taken two days or two months to produce.

LFS is another matter, the end product is the most basic of systems, with just enough software to compile more software, and that's when you start BLFS.

If you decide to go ahead, then good luck, and don't give up if it goes wrong the first couple of times.

Hope, I would guess. It's not a bad idea to see someone's "final" product and see that it is essentially indistinguishable from one of the larger distros.

It's a good point that CBLFS is never really finished and no one likely has every package in the book installed on their system. Another good point that a few screenshots won't tell you how long it took to get to that point. It takes me about a month of evenings after work to get everything installed that I know I want when I start. I'll add a package here and there or upgrade an existing package now and then, but after that first month basically I just use it.

I think the phrase is 'limited to' rather than outdated, and it is x86 not 386, the optimization can go anywhere in the x86 range so 686 etc. Or the phrase is 'the packages LFS refers to are outdated in comparison to CLFS'. Maybe you just needed an and in there.

CLFS is LFS with the emphasis on building a cross compiler.

If you have a fleet of different architectures to support and you want a build machine to support them CLFS makes more sense. The AMD64 chip is a good example of why you might want CLFS over LFS. Though you are not hampered in LFS if you wish to make a cross compiler later.

CLFS is slightly ahead a minor version or so. They maybe more dedicated or just have a larger amount of time by proportion, but of course if you add one person to LFS all things being equal it will have a larger effect than adding one person to CLFS.

The thing with LFS and all the associated projects, is ultimately you are left holding the can, now that is a good and bad thing, good because you should be aware of how you have setup the system and can customize completely each step, bad because there is not so much of a common element; people cannot assume things like they could in a debian, or red hat system. The package manager is the big one, you will either be rolling your own or grabbing an existing, using an existing one cuts into the customization element though.

I think 2 types of people come to LFS, one for education and the other for customization, if you are going to do both at the same time it could be painful, and the only reason I highlight that is you want to roll out to a number of machines. I personally think the customization is worth it to avoid some of the distros, but for a business I would still be inclined to go the distro route, unless I was there everyday managing the machines.

If you want a screen shot of a web server running lfs then you need go further than the lfs site

a late reply but what the heck.

I still use LFS 5.0! I installed it on a P3 850 mhz box with 512 megs of RAM and a old 32 meg video card.
I turned it into a jukebox. I have 25 gigs of .ogg files with some bash and perl scripts to call up specific groups of albums I want to listen to, or I can set a number of songs at random that I want to hear. I have updated the kernel and some packages, but it is basically still LFS 5.0 and unlike that OS from redmond, this LFS has never crashed while it is playing my music.

I also have LFS 6.1 just for playing around and writing, testing different programs. It is all in what you want to do. just build it(LFS) and like the energizer bunny it will keep on going!!