Well, what I remember from it (about 20 years ago now) is mainly this: make/compiler error -> search -> modify obscure file -> repeat. For days in row. At that time I didn't exactly know a lot about programming so most of it was just dumb copy-pasting without knowing what was going on. I do think it was useful (hard to tell - I seem to be able to fix pretty much everything in the SW depertment these days but that's probably a sign of attitude in general, much less thanks to LfS), but also lead to a bit of a distaste for linux. I.e. after having spent weeks like that with lfs, and then again when deciding to go for gentoo, and then again with debian, there wasn't much fun in it anymore. Only a 'been there, done that, now give me something which just works' feeling.
Does systemd vs init.d come into play here? Those are the primary boot/startup frameworks, correct? Is LFS only init.d? Or do you make your own bootstrap process along the way?
The first time, it is whatever is suggested. Then whatever works for You. After doing LFS or similar, You have most of the knowledge to choose. Me, I use rc files, but then I'm a Slackware Linux/OpenBSD snob.
(Oh, init.d drives me up the wall. Learn which kill signals do what You want)
Edit: s/ if / of /
Heads-up: You linked to Beyond LFS, the book for extending an already finished LFS system. The book for installing LFS is https://linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/read.html, which also has a regular and a systemd version.
I have my own LFS and no systemd... neither init.d. I have only an idiotic parallel startup SH script (busybox), already overkill. The main trade-off is I do compile as built-in the linux SH script support module.
- How to compile things
- How to follow instructions
- How to overcome failure and troubleshoot
- How to design a package manager (if you get that far)
- Basic configuration
Also takes a good few hours (it took me 2 days but I had to restart once and had subpar hardware). Weigh the advantages/disads