> Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it.

The attitude that you don't need to learn what is inside the magic black box is exactly the kind of thing LFS is pushing against. UNIX traditionally was a "worse is better" system, where its seen as better design to have a simple system that you can understand the internals of even if that simplicity leads to bugs. Simple systems that fit the needs of the users can evolve into complex systems that fit the needs of users. But you (arguably) can't start with a complex system that people don't use and get users.

If anyone hasn't read the full Worse Is Better article before, its your lucky day:

https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html

▲

ktm5j 3 hours ago | parent [-]

LFS is full of packages that fit your description of a black box. It shows you how to compile and configure packages, but I don't remember them diving into the code internals of a single one.

I understand not wanting to shift from something that is wholly explainable to something that isn't, but it's not the end of the world.

▲

josephg an hour ago | parent [-]

No, its not the end of the world. And I agree, LFS isn't going to be the best resource for learning how a compiler works or cron or ntp. But the init process & systemd is so core to linux. I can certainly see the argument that they should be part of the "from scratch" parts.

	▲	ktm5j 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You still build it from scratch (meaning you compile from source).. they don't dive into Linux code internals either. They still explain what an init system is for and how to use it.