On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 07:54:16AM -0400, Asad Quraishi wrote:
I want to adopt a platform that I know. I know Red Hat, where the files
are located etc. I don't know Debian.
Yes, well, it's not like we mind if you use Red Hat or SuSE. We're a
non-profit, all-volunteer group, and we do this for our own benefit,
and the benefit of our friends and colleagues (and anyone else who
might happen to be interested). "Lost Sales" are a non-issue to us,
since we don't sell anything.
Anyway, "where the files are located" is mostly specified by the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), which is a separate standard that
is included as a component of the LSB. We *are* FHS-compliant, so no
We are writing applications for commercial sale on Linux. I want
our app to install and run in a consistent way.
That's great, that's what the LSB is designed for, and basing your app
on the LSB is exactly what you should do. And if you do that, there's
a very high chance your app will run on Debian. Of course, you can't
promise that, and neither can we, but that's our problem, not yours.
We _do_ plan to be LSB compliant eventually. We are, in general, very
strong believers in open standards. But the LSB is not our top
priority at the moment, because it's not something our users are
demanding. And it's not something our users are demanding because _so
far_, there are few or no apps that require LSB-compliance. The more
apps out there that are based on LSB, the higher our motivation to
support the LSB, and thus everybody wins.
So...what was your question again?...
If I'm right then this is a shame. From my vantage point (as both
business person and technologist) the LSB standards are important as
moving between vendors is that much less painful. It's one of the
reasons I went with Red Hat among distros - although now, for other
reasons, I would like to move to Debian. Is it something you are
Ah, here it is. Yes, yes, it's something we're working on. Depending
on how much motivation the outside world provides, we may or may not
finish. Note that the LSB may still prove semi-irrelevent, like the
Single Unix Spec (SUS), and we may never achieve full LSB compliance
if it turns out in practice that we're close enough (which is how we
stand with SUS at the moment, and probably forever). We'll just have
to see how this plays out.
In the mean time, we are FHS-compliant, which is good enough for most
people. And we can (and do) support _most_ of the LSB. (The parts
that are easy, make sense, and that people have needed or wanted
enough to implement so far.) So, chances are high that any parts of
the LSB you care about are already supported, and if you're not sure
about some specific details, you can always ask.
Does that help?