Re: real LSB compliance
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:17:37AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> >
> > Finally, I want to underline again the fact that the discussions on
> > this subject have been happening for over a year, and most of these
> > issues (runlevels in particular) had been settled a long time ago.
> > Many other distributions (SuSE and Caldera in particular) had already
> > started making changes to their distributions in preparation for LSB.
> >
> > Where were all of the Debian developers back then when we were
> > actually discussing these issues? It was an open process, and you
> > could have affected the course of the standard back then. (There have
> > been a number of very good points that were raised in this thread; I
> > just wish they were raised a year ago.)
> >
> > Where were all of the Debian developers when we started the one month
> > review process before the final standardization of 1.0? We received a
> > lot of comments and carefully considered all of them before putting
> > out the 1.0 standard. Although it would have been much more
> > convenient to have received these sorts of comments a year ago, it
> > still would have been much easier for all concerned if we had received
> > these comments a month ago, instead of now, after LSB 1.0 written
> > specification has been released.
> >
> > Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, most folks refuse to
> > actually pay attention to a standard until after it's finally released
> > --- at which point they start kvetching. Well, if you don't like what
> > happened with LSB 1.0, please help us with LSB 1.1! Volunteers are
> > always appreciated.
>
> FUD
FUD has a specific definition, which is "Fear, Uncertainty, and
Doubt". Exactly how was my message related to any of these things?
- Ted
Reply to: