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


On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current, Ph.D. wrote:

> I'll look.  I definatly don't agree with the spec as I have read it
> last.  The OS does NOT include X, X is software.

X is middle ware. It is neither the OS, or the application. It fits
in between.

> I think the LSB has
> drifted way to far into standardizing software, and not defining a
> "base" OS.  X is one example of a huge hunk of software, that is fairly
> standard, but should be considered "software" and not the OS.

X can be easily broken down into 3 seperate chunks:

1) The X server
	This is the part that draw on your display. You don't have to be
	using an Xserver to use X applications. You just run them against
	an Xserver on another platform. The Xserver is clearly not part of
	the LSB.

2) The collection of X clients
	This is most of the stuff in /usr/X11R6/bin/. Window managers,
	xterms, xclock, etc, etc. You don't have to have these to use your
	Linux system. You generally don't have to have any of these to run
	an X application (ie the one thing you do want to do one you system).
	These are not part of the LSB

3) The base X libraries
	This is the real middleware that is used by a X application. These
	are the libraries that are defined by an existing standard, and do
	the work to implement the X Window System. This does NOT include the
	higher level libraries that are used by the desktops like KDE & Gnome.
	This is the only part of X that is included in the LSB.
> X standards should be in place somewhere, but I think it should be spun
> off into it's own project, and not part of the LSB.

No need to spin anything off. The X standards have been part of a group
that has been around for a very long time (although the name has changed a
few times). The X standards are currently maintained by X.org, and the
currently used implementation (for Linux) is provided by XFree86.

> I think there are
> too many problems to be addressed before X is considered, and it's just
> taking on too much responsability.  Plus, I firmly believe that MOST
> Linux servers in use today (commercially) can operate perfectly without
> X, providing proof that X need not be included in the "base."

By taking this position, you might be making the same mistake that was
made by the commercial UNIX vendors a few years ago. They took the position
of conceeding the desktop to Microsoft, and only concentrating on the server
side of things. I think that one of the really great things about Linux is
that it has created a new beachhead in the desktop market. In order to
support this, I think that it is important for the LSB to cover the base
portions of X as outlined above, even though it it middleware.


Stuart R. Anderson                               anderson@metrolink.com

Metro Link Incorporated                          South Carolina Office
4711 North Powerline Road                        129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309                   Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.938.0283                              voice: 803.951.3630
fax:   954.938.1982                              SkyTel: 800.405.3401

Reply to: