On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:07:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 12:11:45PM +0200, wouter@debian.org wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Rainer Dorsch wrote: > > > Debian needs to be redhat binary compatible. > > Excuse me? > > "Standard" != "RedHat". There's something called the "Linux Standards > > Base" [...] > > Quite frankly, Red Hat makes a better standard than the LSB atm: at least > there's an existing implementation you can compare and contrast against... > Personal opinion (which may be incorrect) follows: LSB is a set of written standards that various groups are attempting to adhere to. It's not perfect but has attempted to be standardized. RH is a single implementation, which while allegedly popular is not standardized. It is also subject to change with each RH release to drift towards or away from LSB without prior warning and in unknown ways. This same issue is one of the banes of HTML. One should work according to PUBLISHED STANDARDS (the HTML spec as provided by w3), not according to 'this works in the field' (whatever nutscrape or internet exploder happen to be doing in their latest release). </rant> Dave -- - Dave Baker : dave@dsb3.com : dave@devbrain.com : http://dsb3.com/ - GnuPG: 1024D/D7BCA55D / 09CD D148 57DE 711E 6708 B772 0DD4 51D5 D7BC A55D
Attachment:
pgpqDiuzDYMwl.pgp
Description: PGP signature