[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB Commands and Utilities, Draft proposal

Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo wrote:
> [trimmed lsb-spec]
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Daniel Bradley wrote:
> > Unlike mainstream Unices Linux has the potential to operate in a vast
> > number of radically different roles. Hence the LSB needs to be as small
> > as possible, to allow maximum flexibility.
> That's one of the goals, I beleive.
> > For example, Linux as a gamer's platform. Another example is Linux being
> > used as the OS for Car MP3 players.
> The gamer's platform should depend on LSB so that, for instance, the game
> installer can either use a standardized package interface or have access
> to a common set of tools that are available (like rm and cp).
> The MP3 player platform is considerably different. Chances are that you
> won't be installing much software on your MP3 player (or are people doing
> word processing in their dashboards now and I missed it?). An MP3 player
> is outside of the scope of LSB. The primary goal, as I understand it, is
> to provide a baseline of standard tools and libraries that applications
> can depend upon the existance of. In the case of an MP3 player, all the
> software that is necessary to run it will be installed by the OEM and no
> more software (beyond updates) should need to be installed. An application
> vendor isn't targeting an MP3 player as a potentail platform. Ditto for a
> router. These sort of specialized embedded systems are outside of the
> general scope of LSB, and I don't see any reason LSB should make an effort
> to include these platforms. They don't benefit from LSB, and LSB doesn't
> gain anything from limiting itself to include them.
> All this, of course, IMHO.

I concede that the LSB isn't really aimed at embedded systems. I brought
up MP3 players just to remind people of the diversity of Linux
applications. My point really was that Linux has a far greater potential
for diversity than Unix, and that the LSB isn't just about creating a
Linux equivalent of Unix98, or any other "One True Unix" specification.

In my mind Unix specifications are about saying "A Unix box should have
these executables, and these executables do these things", where the
executables include user oriented programs, not just system programs.
Wheras from what I understand of the LSB goals, the LSB would just cover
system programs.

I was just concerned that a few people on this list may have forgotten
the goals of the LSB.


> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

Email: Daniel Bradley <d.bradley@islabs.com>
Web:   http://www.islabs.com

Reply to: