Re: Future of Linux
> steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is the consensus on
> the FHS 2.0... do the distributions that are part of the lsb agree to
> use it?
It was discussed at and shortly after the LI meeting when Bruce presented
the whole cunning plan. FHS 2.0 is a big help but it might need some
tightening. Dan Quinlan is conveniently in both the LSB and FHS projects
> Second, I want to address libc. Will glibc be present on all upcoming
> linux distributions? I believe that moving to glibc is an important step
> in securing a posix conformant linux. Judging from the latest release of
> debian, however, I wonder if there is any progress on moving away from
> libc5...
libc5 is dead, even its maintainers have proclaimed this. I've not seen
any major pressure to spec libc5 at all, even if some vendors choose for
now to ship libc5 based systems with glibc available.
> upcoming UDI drivers? Personally, I feel the UDI is one of the BIGGEST
> steps linux has taken to avoid being shut out of the latest hardware by
> Microsoft. The UDI will, most likely, end the FUD tactic of claiming
> that linux only works with OLD hardware.
UDI is irrelevant. The existing UDI semantics cannot express the Linux
resource management or driver layering. Its also out of the lsb standard
area completely (indeed conceptually you could probably hack freebsd
around and produce a LSB compliant freebsd) since we care about services
at the glibc level.
Alan
Reply to: