Re: Linux Core Consortium
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:46:53PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:55 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:36:52PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > But overriding them means we lose the certification ?
> > >
> > > We can't allow it to be the case that overriding due to an existing and
> > > unremedied security issue causes loss of certification. There's no
> > > common sense in that.
> >
> > Then could you elaborate the scope of the certification ? It is one
> > of the main contender for me. I though the certification require to
> > ship the exact same binary as provided by the LCC.
>
> The LCC will be pursuing its certification efforts through the
> existing LSB certification process. The smaller ISVs will be more
> willing to be flexible, so changes to the core that don't result
> in loss of LSB compliance may be acceptable to them. We've heard
> directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
> binary core will be viable from their point of view. So,
> as with all things in this business, there will be tradeoffs
> involved--you'll be free to make changes, at the potential
> loss of some, though not necessarily all, ISV certifications.
So Debian will help to build a certification that will ultimately
discriminate against itself, so now proprietary software vendors
have one more reason to not support Debian ?
Alternatively, what would prevent the LCC to standardize on woody core
(or sarge core when it came out) ? I mean, the core softwares the LCC is
interested in are already present in several distros today, so probably
it is possible to evaluate today what change e.g. sarge core would require
to be acceptable as a core to the LCC ? That would certainly give us
some ideas about where the LCC is going.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: