Re: RFC
* Robert W. Current (rob@entropy.current.nu) [000315 08:03]:
>
> It's the definition of what "base" means that I am arguing. Base should
> not mean "the few things we can find in common" but insted, a "small
> subset that is considered the OS itself, a small set of standard tools,
> and a outline of the structure to be built on."
If one defines the LSB standard as encompassing only the minimum of what is
required for Linux to be a usable OS, that misses one of LSB's important
goals: To make it possible for all major applications to run on all
LSB-compliant distributions of Linux. This isn't an academic exercise - it
is a very pragmatic approach to solving the business problems of having
divergent distributions.
-Nick
--
**********************************************************
Nicholas Petreley LinuxWorld - InfoWorld
nicholas@petreley.com - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12
**********************************************************
.
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current Jr. Ph.D." <current@hel-inc.com>
- References:
- RE: RFC
- From: Jeffrey Watts <watts@jayhawks.net>
- RE: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current" <rob@entropy.current.nu>