On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > You can start by writing to our man on point with the LSB, Dale Scheetz.
As said elsewhere, I was going to submit the draft to -private. If you
think it would be better for you to handle it, say so and I'll stay out
of it. I offered because nobody else had and based on opinions found
here on -devel and on Debian's irc channels, I felt someone should do
something. I'm not trying to work around you or without the opinions of
> > It is noteworthy, however, that Dale hasn't already commented in this
> > thread. Are you still actively following the LSB, Dale?
> That only has to do with the fact that I also have "billions" of other
> things to do besides reading ill informed postings on this list.
> I'm sorry if I sound harsh. It is only because I am already overloaded
> with "other people's problems" as well as a raft of my own.
I can understand that you've had a lot to do.
> If you wish to educate yourself with /. and not check the facts before
> spreading fud, then I have no time for you. For information about what the
> LSB is doing check the web site (www.linuxbase.org), where you will find
> all of the borring details about how this committee is organized and what
> is currently going on, or ask me <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
I was using just what they had released. Not anything based on Slashdot
(which probably has a story on this by now, but I haven't read it..)
> The test suite under discussion is completely the product of TOG, as a
> "favor" to the LSB. I made my objections to the chair of the LSB Committee
> when TOG first suggested the name of the test suite, but (as usual) my
> objections were ignored ;-)
> The FHS test suite was suggested, soon after the license was resolved on
> the POSIX test suite produced by TOG. With the current license, we can
> "pick and choose" from the test suites available, those tests that suit
> the needs of the LSB. So, it really doesn't matter if TOG insists on
> misnaming the test suite, we can still use it as we please, within the
> constraints of the Artistic license.
Why then did the release info indiciate this was the first version of a
LSB compliance test suite but wasn't finished yet so we can't claim based
on it that we're compliant? The FUD was not in a Slashdot article, it
was on the page which you download the thing from. Essentially, anyone
not part of the (AFAIK never opened to the public) LSB mailing list would
read this exactly as I did. And in fact that's what they did read,
before I even knew there was a release.
> In addition, there is going to be a "physical" meeting of the major
> participants (myself included) soon, so we can get to know each other
> better, and get a better idea of what we are each going to be able to
> accomplish. There is also going to be a meeting between us and the various
> vendors and distributions that have an interest in the outcome of this
> standard, so that we can come to understand their needs better as well.
> I believe that Ian J. <our fearless leader> will be representing Debian at
> that meeting.
> So, if I seem to not be "johnie on the spot" as much as I have in the
> past, rest assured that I am grinding away on LSB Testing issues, right
> along with all the other things I grind at ;-)
Mostly I am concerned with the information which you regard as FUD being
found at the original URLs, not in any story published on Slashdot or
whatever. I am glad to see it's not as much a worry as I originally
thought and (as Vincent suggested) I am interested in helping however I
can. I didn't mean to step on your toes and I am sorry if my message
indicated that was my intent. Based on the information I had, the
release info for this test suite, I saw the same problems other people
were seeing and felt it necessary to start to get the ball rolling to
avert disaster with the LSB.
> The following is directed at Joseph:
> If you insist on associating the deficiencies in one thing with the
> capabilities of another, I'm surprised your life isn't total chaos. Such
> reasoning is totally without logic, and you would be better off rolling
> dice to decide your next move.
> I strongly suggest you do better research, next time you think you should
> badmouth someone else's work. There are some very quality folks working on
> the LSB, and you denigrate their efforts when you draw the unsubstantiated
> conclusions you presented above.
I consider this unfair at the very least. Before the LSB project was
created there was an irc meeting which was held somewhat in secret,
though I heard about it. I attended about half of that meeting based on
what I know and there I offered to help. My offer was rejected then. I
tried to follow the project afterward, but information was kept internal
and the only way I could follow anything was by reading public archives
of a private list, which I wasn't even aware of until such time as things
started happening which lead to Bruce Perens leaving the LSB project.
When the LCS project was formed I joined the list with the hopes of being
able to help where I could and at least follow development of the
project. When LCS was merged back into LSB, people like me were left out
in the cold. No information since has been exactly released to the
public, though I have been watching for it.
Then when the LSB project releases something and I go to check it out and
read lots of stuff, much of it alarming and what you call FUD and bring
it up here offering once again to do something, you tell me I haven't
done my research. I read the page attached to the official release. If
that page is in error it is not my error.
I propose the LSB project stop releasing FUD if they don't want it spread
and that they stop keeping people who would like to at least follow the
project and help it succeed where they can from doing so.
"I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark."
-- Earth: Final Conflict
- Re: LSB?
- From: Dale Scheetz <email@example.com>
- Re: LSB?
- From: "Ean R . Schuessler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: LSB?
- From: Dale Scheetz <email@example.com>