| ▲ | charcircuit a day ago |
| It is more how stuff is compiled than how stuff works. Fundamental things like how processes are scheduled are not explained by LFS. |
|
| ▲ | gchamonlive a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| "works" is a loaded term. LFS is how the rubber meets the road, you want how the rubber is made, for that you need something like https://www.baeldung.com/linux/processes-guide or https://linux-kernel-labs.github.io/refs/heads/master/lectur... |
| |
| ▲ | newswasboring 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And if you want to get to at least the bottom most visible turtle you go with something like NAND to Tetris https://www.nand2tetris.org/ | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >LFS is how the rubber meets the road Again I disagree. Way too much time is spent building software than actual practical OS development. | | |
| ▲ | mid-kid 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | LFS is not OS development. You build a distribution by assembling all the components. If you want to develop an OS from scratch, perhaps you're looking for osdev.org. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | What is the point of making a distro, if not to make an OS? It's the same thing. | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | One supports the other, they aren't laid in opposition, but they are different, well-defined disciplines |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | smitty1e 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| OK: "How *nix tools functioned together in command-line days". |
