LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Linux From Scratch
User Name
Password
Linux From Scratch This Forum is for the discussion of LFS.
LFS is a project that provides you with the steps necessary to build your own custom Linux system.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-23-2004, 07:46 AM   #1
soul916
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: 0
Question What is pure linux?


Could somebody tell me what is PURE? I always see this word in LFS, but I don't know what this mean.

If a system not pure, what's trouble with it?

How can I estimate a LINUX SYSTEM PURE?

THANKS!!!!!
 
Old 09-23-2004, 08:21 AM   #2
halo14
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Surprise, AZ
Distribution: Debian | CentOS | Arch
Posts: 1,103

Rep: Reputation: 45
LFS is Linux From Scratch..

It taking the source code for linux and rolling your own customized distrobution... Pretty cool egh?? I hope to try it one day... though I don't anticipate ever using as a main OS.... just a toy... I enjoy SuSE, Slack, and Debian way too much...
 
Old 09-23-2004, 10:42 AM   #3
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
If you're referring to the "pure" vs "taint" you might get in the kernel messages or lsmod, its because of the licence used for the particular element. If something is coded and the author licences with a non-GPL that violates one or more terms of the GPL, it is said to be tainted. That would be the philisophical taint. Unless you're Richard Stallman's biggest and most devoted fan, I'd not worry as much about "pure". Many of the technologies from FreeBSD have made their way to Linux and their licence is not so bad at all (and it upheld a lawsuit, which GPL has yet to do - thank you SCO).

If you're referring to "pure" vs "bloated", then you're really referring to good programming vs bad programming, and that's another story

If you want to cut the bloat with your own distro, choose an advanced install and start with a minimal system and build it as you want to. I've don'e this for years with Debian, Mandrake and FreeBSD (and now Gentoo). Its better than taking the whole and trying to cut the fat. Did that clear anything up? Or are you worse off now?
 
Old 10-01-2004, 02:40 AM   #4
mdh
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: (C)LFS (x86_64, ix86, sparcv9, ppc)
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 16
Pure LFS ( or PLFS ) was the name of the build framework which eventually became LFS 5.0 .

It was denoted pure as the build method has next to no reliance on the host, and effectively the
whole build is a bootstrap, using a self contained toolchain linked against the same
version of the c-libraries you are migrating to, to build enough packages to build the final system
effectively from itself.

Older build methods built ch5 binaries statically linked with host-system libraries, and the build
tended to get tainted by pulling in host headers and libraries.

Hope this avoids some confusion ;-)

[R]
 
Old 10-05-2004, 11:19 PM   #5
soul916
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 8

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by mdh
Pure LFS ( or PLFS ) was the name of the build framework which eventually became LFS 5.0 .

It was denoted pure as the build method has next to no reliance on the host, and effectively the
whole build is a bootstrap, using a self contained toolchain linked against the same
version of the c-libraries you are migrating to, to build enough packages to build the final system
effectively from itself.

Older build methods built ch5 binaries statically linked with host-system libraries, and the build
tended to get tainted by pulling in host headers and libraries.

Hope this avoids some confusion ;-)

[R]
I think the "pure" means "self contained toolchain linked against the same
version of the c-libraries you are migrating to", but how could I validate a system is "pure"?

For example, how could I validate RedHat or Debian is pure or not?

If a system didn't pure, what's it problem?

I'm waitting the answer, Thanks!
 
Old 10-06-2004, 12:16 AM   #6
Darkseid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 43

Rep: Reputation: 15
Linux is pure when the PC is using Linux kernel and nothing else. Purity in FOSS is stupid. If Redhat isn't pure, is Suse, Slackware, or Debian? Remove Linux kernel from Debian and put in GNU Hurd, it's no longer Linux. Linux isn't an OS, it's part of one (best one).
 
Old 10-06-2004, 12:21 AM   #7
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by soul916
I think the "pure" means "self contained toolchain linked against the same
version of the c-libraries you are migrating to", but how could I validate a system is "pure"?

For example, how could I validate RedHat or Debian is pure or not?

If a system didn't pure, what's it problem?

I'm waitting the answer, Thanks!
I am more concerned as to why this measure of purity seems to be important to you (and others who are concerned about this measure as well).
 
Old 10-07-2004, 07:44 PM   #8
verzonnen
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 31

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by vectordrake
I am more concerned as to why this measure of purity seems to be important to you (and others who are concerned about this measure as well).
Well I imagine that people would like to know why a package would not compile and install on their system. All distros seem to put things in different places and put in their own optimazations. Not that I think it is bad to be different, but still it does not make live any easier if you are a newbie like me .
 
Old 10-07-2004, 09:08 PM   #9
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
I can certainly understand a concern like yours. That's one of the reasons why I suggest that a person who is new try Mandrake or Debian, as the package managers are very good and you usually end up with a system that still works when you add a piece of software - and the # of packages in the repositories is huge. Of course, you could also take the path I did, and fall for Gentoo (for the same reasons).

As far as purity is concerned, I have always gone by the "PURE GPL" idea - and quickly disregarded it for functionality. I had a friend who breathed GPL, as if it were his "god", so to speak. We had a difference of opinion, which was easy with him, unfortunately. Is it right to use software with a different licence, like the BSD one? I don't know. I'm okay with it.

i think that you'll find most distributions store files in the same directories. The structure is the same, for the most part. A few, like Red Hat and Slackware put files in strange places sometimes, which can make for confusion, but for the most part, one can find things in similar places. The best way to understand what's the "BEST" (as opposed to pure) is to read about what really makes a Unix-like operating system what it is. Specifically regarding Linux, one could check out a source, like the linux documentation project or the RUTE manual. And, of course, come back here and ask questions (or seek the answers from the Wiki.
 
Old 10-08-2004, 12:04 PM   #10
verzonnen
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 31

Rep: Reputation: 15
Maybe a better example would be my reasons why I moved away from a couple of the distributions,.

1) Mandrake does not have the Apache web server but the Mandrake Extranet Server (I know it's just a re-branded apche web server) So I just downloaded, compiled and installed Apache from apache.org. But the last drop for me was when I tried to update Perl from CPAN......

2) Suse copyrichted yast and even their config files, now that really put me off (have not seen what they are like since Novell got involved, but I have been hearing encouraging stories)

3) The prices the major vendors ask for their "advanced" distro's are just a joke and gets away from my idea of "free" software. I have therefor no real desire to learn their particular quircks...

All distro's have some problems, but what attracts me to LFS, Debian, Free/NetBSD and others is the fact that they do not have to have the shareholders intrest in mind in the decision making. Secondly the large (and small) vendors make huge targets to companies like SCO...

I am currently using Fedora (desktop) and FreeBSD (server) , but I am thinking of trying my hand at gentoo and/or slackware before I give LFS a go. But then again diving in head first can also be fun....
 
Old 10-08-2004, 05:26 PM   #11
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
I'll vouch for Gentoo. One thing it has over LFS is compiler optimizations (which you can do with LFS, but only after reading the GCC guide), which may speed things up. But. with LFS, you learn about where toolchains go and how to compile. Gentoo compiles, but emerge does all the work, like FreeBSD's port stsem does, with the comvenience of urpmi or apt-get.
 
Old 11-07-2004, 12:57 AM   #12
Paulsuk
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: LFS
Posts: 91

Rep: Reputation: 15
An interesting thread, I thought I'd chip in with my reasons for choosing LFS....

I started with Slackware which seemed ok for someone like me (fairly experienced with computers and various OSes, but new to Linux) but I was frustrated by 2 elements...[list=1][*]It uses an "odd" init system. I believe this is called the "BSD" system and have yet to get my head around it fully. It isn't about what is "best", but what works. Many packages assume the RedHat style and install appropriately. I wasn't sure how to migrate.[*]Installing from a Distro means some stuff gets installed automatically, and not neccessarily in the standard location. For example, I had Apache 1.3 installed and tried to get Apache 2 working Aggh! When I started playing will SAMBA, well.... Suffice it to say that LFS was worth a serious look![/list=1]I'm less concerned by licenses etc. but for me "pure" means OS and the ability to install applications only. No "extras" the distro author thinks I should have.

Paul

Last edited by Paulsuk; 11-07-2004 at 12:58 AM.
 
Old 11-07-2004, 12:01 PM   #13
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 380Reputation: 380Reputation: 380Reputation: 380
Quote:
Originally posted by Paulsuk
It uses an "odd" init system. I believe this is called the "BSD" system and have yet to get my head around it fully. It isn't about what is "best", but what works. Many packages assume the RedHat style and install appropriately. I wasn't sure how to migrate.
there's an included slackware package called "sysvinit" which gives you compatibility...

i'll quote from the /etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit file:

Quote:
# rc.sysvinit This file provides basic compatibility with SystemV style
# startup scripts. The SystemV style init system places
# start/stop scripts for each runlevel into directories such as
# /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ (for runlevel 3) instead of starting them
# from /etc/rc.d/rc.M. This makes for a lot more init scripts,
# and a more complicated execution path to follow through if
# something goes wrong. For this reason, Slackware has always
# used the traditional BSD style init script layout.
#
# However, many binary packages exist that install SystemV
# init scripts. With rc.sysvinit in place, most well-written
# startup scripts will work. This is primarily intended to
# support commercial software, though, and probably shouldn't
# be considered bug free.
here's a neat page which tries to de-mistify slackware's "odd" init system:

http://old.slackfiles.net/documentat...cles/init.html


Quote:
Installing from a Distro means some stuff gets installed automatically
this is true on a lot of distros, but my experience with slackware hasn't been like this... in fact, it's been the exact opposite of this... and i'm sure other slackers can attest to this too...

here's another distro that tries to "keep it simple", though the base install isn't as minimal as slackware's:

Quote:
CRUX is a lightweight, i686-optimized Linux distribution targeted at experienced Linux users. The primary focus of this distribution is "keep it simple", which is reflected in a simple tar.gz-based package system, BSD-style initscripts, and a relatively small collection of trimmed packages. The secondary focus is utilization of new Linux features and recent tools and libraries. CRUX also has a ports system which makes it easy to install and upgrade applications.
http://www.crux.nu/

Last edited by win32sux; 11-07-2004 at 12:49 PM.
 
Old 11-08-2004, 10:09 AM   #14
Paulsuk
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: LFS
Posts: 91

Rep: Reputation: 15
Thanks for that - although advice a tad late for me! (I have my LFS system up now...)

I have to be honest, for me, one of the biggest problems in "taking up" Linux, was deciding on a Distro to use. Having done an LFS, I'm proud of it, although I am still having some odd problems which will no doubt be ironed out eventually.

I hear what you say about both SysV and default packages, but it really isn't that obvious when you come to do your install. Most people, I suspect, will do one of three things when installing any distro for the first time....[list=1][*]Leave the defaults. Unfortunately, you end up with stuff you perhaps don't want and other stuff you do want is missing.[*]Install everything.[*]Try to cut out stuff you think you won't need (like I did) and then find that you did need it after all and have no idea how to add it later![/list=1] In my case, I missed out something needed to compile stuff from scratch so was unable to add things I wanted. The great thing about LFS is that you know not only what you are installing, but why. I now have a system where I know exactly what's on it and why that is there. I can happily add Apache2 or SAMBA3 without finding "old" stuff getting in the way which was "helpfully" installed by the distro.

I agree that Slackware isn't as bad for this as most (which is why I chose it) but you are still faced with a huge number of choices which you aren't neccessarily in a position to make. (The old chicken and the egg situation).

Still, at least a HAVE that choice, which is more than I would have done if I had remained in Mr. Gates' camp!

Paul
 
Old 11-15-2004, 11:45 PM   #15
cryptwizard
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Distribution: Debian Squeeze
Posts: 49

Rep: Reputation: 15
The problem with CRUX is that it uses the stupid DEVFS.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C++ or pure C for Linux kernel module, Linux device driver development. What to use? Igor007 Programming 91 07-19-2014 11:55 AM
Linux not pure Unix ilnli Linux - General 12 07-21-2005 01:51 AM
Need 4 Pure Linux !!! vivinuthappa Linux - Distributions 7 09-20-2004 10:04 AM
How pure is Linux? mikeshn General 4 09-07-2004 01:18 AM
pure linux network justinbigelow Linux - General 3 10-29-2003 10:27 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Linux From Scratch

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration