Re: Linux Core Consortium
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.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may
act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." -T.E. Lawrence
Reply to: