Re: LSB Commands and Utilities, Draft proposal
And lo, the chronicles report that Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo spake thusly unto the masses:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Daniel Bradley wrote:
> 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.
Well the first and foremost (and IMO, most important) issue the LSB was
supposed to resolve was that of binary compatibility, and I think even
devices such as MP3 players and routers using Linux could gain from binary
compatibility, esp. if they want to allow third-party (non-OEM) extensions.
Parts of the LSB which deal with system calls at least should be applicable
here (for those who want only kernel-level compatibility, such as perhaps
Amiga) and possibly those which deal with runtime library support (such as
Just my $0.02
icy_manipulator @ mindless.com
"The fool finds ignorance all around him. The wise man finds ignorance within."
Use of any of my email addresses is subject to the terms found at
http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653/email.shtml. By using any of my addresses, you
agree to be bound by the terms therein.