Re: LSB on /.
I figured since I've been quite and reading for awhile, I might as well
throw my 2 cents in regarding the LSB.
I'll go threw each topic, and add some of my thoughts/opinions, as an end
user, and someone who maintains systems.
So, lets get on with it.
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Me wrote:
> > The LSB 0.9 announcement is on /.
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/08/1412223
> >
> > Please do respond to posts with questions.
>
> I read many of the posts and replied to a couple posts.
>
> The quality of what I saw was pathetic, even for
> slashdot. There were a few exceptions posted
> by people who seemed to be well informed
> about the LSB, perhaps people who read
> this list.
>
> Most threads consisted of someone shooting
> their mouth off about some imagined problem
> and others agreeing with the OP. (I'm pretty
> sure that a lot of this was the result of guesses
> at the meaning of "Linux Standard Base". Of
> course, assuming I am correct, my beloved
> "common ground" concept would have helped
> considerably in just about every case, because
> it speaks directly to the very issues they raised.)
>
> I also got the impression that few had heard
> of the LSB and just about none properly
> understood it was about done and merely
> awaiting public comment. Perhaps this was
> a good thing...
>
>
> The main topics were, in the order they came up:
>
>
> 1. LSB refuses to encompass BSD and Solaris.
>
> "They have closed minds".
>
> [I quoted a recent post in response:
> http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss-0104/msg00040.html]
>
Well, seeing as this hasn't become the 1.0 spec, it's probably a good idea
to keep it to a single "system" (being linux in this case) as that is what
I believe the starting point for this whole thing was/is
>
> 2. They picked RPM. They're red hat droids.
>
> "it appears both redhat and debian are
> contributors, but i would imagine redhat
> contributes a bit more. i really think this is
> going to hurt things."
>
> [I pointed out there had been plenty of debate.]
>
There have been lots of debate, and personally I can't stand RPM's to any
degree what so ever, and don't believe that it's the answer. As was
stated in another RPM debate thread that is going on at the moment.
"Let's face it, RPM is far from ideal. It has flaws. Different Linux
distributions implement different features in RPM that essentially, from
the ISV perspective mean that to support just the commerncial Linux
distributions requires the same effort as supporting 5 or 6 different Unix
implementations. The cost and overhead of this is not worth it to many
large software houses. In other words - we all lose out!
The LSB had to start somewhere. We recognise that we are not going to
convert all the RPM based Linux distributions to deb. Not yet that is, and
probably not at any time soon. "
As stated by John H. Terpstra. However, if it's not worth doing right in
the first place, why bother? Not to insult RPM itself (I personally don't
like it, but that's my opinion), but, why rush the LSB out the door if
it's not ready? Other then trying to hurry the LSB out the door at a
previous point (at this juncture in the road, I believe the debate is
mute, and I am not trying to start it up, nor continue it), wouldn't it
have been better to define a new set of API's, and then someone else could
build it? As it is, I don't see that distributions will be able to
implement the LSB as it runs out the door.
>
> 3. They didn't pick font standards.
>
> In this thread, one poster completely misunderstood
> what it meant to have a "standard base".
>
> "ghostscript and X fonts are very different and
> used for different purposes. I don't see a reason
> to combine them into one."
>
Is there a specification for type setting now in the LSB??
>
> 4. Reversing Linux fragmentation is a good idea.
>
> A more intelligent poster said:
>
> "My question is, is it not so much that we're
> making it so all software can run on many
> distributions, as making all distributions
> essentially the same?"
>
Personally, and this is personally, are we making all distributions
essentially the same? If that is the case, why not just go back to using
Microsoft products?
>
> 5. It should be GNU/Linux Standard Base.
>
> Most posters debated what the name really
> should be:
>
> "Standard Base for Systems Built Upon a
> Linux-alike Kernel"
>
I'm staying out of the GNU/Linux debate. I call it Linux, but then, I
refer to the Kernel, I call it slackware because that's the distro I use
and refer to.
>
> 6. Why did Slackware boycott the LSB?
As mentioned in a few posts scattered about, the RPM settlement was a
given, as just about everyone represented here uses the RPM format.
And, I believe that slackware prefers to be uniquie in it's own way.
Personally, after reading some of the Rationales, such as the Further
Rationale item 1. which states:
"1. We need to develop a single model Linux system. One that can be
adopted by the various distributions with little difficulty. This is the
single greatest goal that we must achieve. Anything which interferes with
this goal should automatically be eliminated."
It sounds more like "Resistence is futile, you will be assimilated". As
far as I was aware, and the great thing about Linux, is it's diversity
(though, that has gotten abit out of hand here and there). In Item 4, it's
stated not to dictate what linux can do now, and let linux go where it
goes, except some of that will be stiffled by say a new distro xyz (lets
say I made it) that has implementation of a new thing, but also wants to
be LSB compliant, it's either install backwards compatability in one form
or another, or abandon it. Yes, the option to have 2 "items" (I'm using
items because I have no current examples at the moment) reside together is
always there and possible, But if 1 system is far superior to another,
then why even bother with the inferior one. This would be a possible case
of the LSB not updating fast enough, but, in the public eye, does it
really matter if xyz distro is not at fault, and has something superior.
These are all just my opinion, and maybe I missed something here, or
failed to read into something far enough, all comments to me personally
are welcome, however, as I have seen things unfold from my seat, it seems
as if the LSB is following the Microsoft legend, in some cases they have
had good ideas, but with poor implementation, or gestapo like tactics to
force something that could have possibly been good on it's own merit (no
examples here, if you have any, I'm interested).
I think the LSB is a great idea, but can be stiffling to some distro's
(did I mention I use slackware?). One of the things I'm actually curious
about though, is an example of pre-compiled software that was not
installable and/or runnable from one distro to another, as in my travels,
using mostly source, I have not had this problem, nor encountered it
anywhere.
-- Dave Greene
Dave.Greene@omniplex.net
>
> --me
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
Reply to: