[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB?

Chris Lawrence wrote:
>Nice to see the Open Group and X/Open are going to send us chasing our
>tails trying to get this stuff together (so we can call our Linux
>implementations "Linux" :-p) instead of pursuing Unix branding.

Indeed. I thought LSB was going to be an Application Environment
specification - so that apps developed on one distribution would run on all
the others.

If that's still the case, I wanna know WTF they are thinking/smoking,
specifying kernel locations, netstat, mount/umount, fdisk, setserial,
disktab, adjtime, csh.login (!), fdprm, fstab, gettydefs (!!!), group,
passwd, inittab, lilo, mtab, profile, securetty, exports, hosts,
hosts.allow, hosts.deny, networks, printcap, protocols, services, rpc,
/home, /lib/modules, /opt existing (conflicts with FHS), /root, clock,
getty, init, update, mkswap, swapon, swapoff, telinit, shutdown, fsck, mkfs,
ifconfig, route, /tmp cleaning, /usr/X386 (?!?), includes, g++,
/usr/local/*, process accounting, utmp (ALL programs should use the
wrapper), /var/spool/lpd, rwho, /var/tmp persistance, NIS, ALL OF THE DAMN
MAJOR/MINOR NUMBERS FOR THE DEVICES, /usr/src, /usr/src/linux, compilers...

*NO* well-behaved application should use/twiddle/tinker with ANY of the
above. (Well, I could be wrong in a couple spots, but... wow.)

P.S.: From where is /bin/domainname standard? I can see it's purpose in an
app env standard, so I'm curious...
Robert Woodcock - rcw@debian.org
"Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses" -- Richard Gabriel

Reply to: