> Arguably, yes. And, if it's small middleware, I don't have an issue
> with considering it's inclusion. But, libncurses amounts to what, 4M or
> so? That's definitely borderline, but arguable. X, I would have to
> differ on that point, based on size.
> $ pwd
> $ du -sh
> 47M .
> To me, that's a scary base. It sounds like your only talking about ISVs
> who want to do GUI workstation environments if you want to consider
> that. If I had time, I would reference the several dozen articles on
> why Linux can do what Windows can, solely because it's scalable, and now
> possibly headed towards the embedded market.
Oh, so you're worried about size and simply want a standard embedded
Linux. Go get EL/IX.
Honestly, I don't see what *size* has to do with what gets standardized
and what doesn't. It's about what ISVs need, period, to build a usable
application on. This should probably be more narrowly defined as for
a server or desktop app and not necessarily an embedded one (or even
a clustered one).
> I don't intend on addressing what seems to be the dominate argument
> here, that "almost everyone needs X" because I don't believe it. I
> think it's short sighted. If the LSB requires X, then most ISP's, rack
> mount system manufactures, and many "Linux device" companies will be
> very far outside of standard compliance. Take any one of those markets,
> and exclude it, and I feel it will be making a mistake.
I think what you really want are different levels of certification. Right
now, the LSB is shooting for the very large middle level. There are tiny
but growing small levels as well as larger levels that might need to be
standardized too. But you have to start somewhere.
> Consider any major internet site that runs Linux (excite.com, salon.com,
> amazon.com, etc..) really should require X on all their servers?
> Obviously no. Some DB ISVs also will not need X. I just don't see how
> it's absolutely necessary that it be in a "base" set.
> By making the LSB include X, your excluding all these people from having
> a useful standard to draw from.
Yeah, you're excluding some very small percentage of all Linux users today.
That doesn't mean people won't ever care about them.
> > There's no reason at all not to make LSB an enabling technology for
> > ISVs, rather than limiting its usefulness to them.
> Again, that's just a "let's throw everything including the kitchen sink
> in" mentality. And, there is no reason X can't simply be treated as an
> optional layer on the base.
> Requirements such as X for some ISV software should be addressed. But
> they should be addressed through a standard package accounting system.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Why not just say "well, the kernel and bash
are *the* standard...everything else is just a dependency."??? You're
right, there is a line. You're just way out on some side that no one
but you agrees with.
> It's not a win-win-win situation. It's a win-loose-loose situation.
> Not all ISVs need X, not all linux hardware manufactures need X, not all
> distributions use X (Yes, it's true, one of the strengths of Linux is
> all the little nitch distributions, don't write them off so fast), and
> believe it or not, probably MOST Linux users don't use X (if you
> understand that most Linux users don't even know they are using Linux
> when they send mail through their ISP, or load a web page from a Linux
> server running apache).
Well, damn....not all ISVs need bash, either. What's your point? Most
do need X. Deal.
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com email@example.com "Bah."
Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V.
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
- Re: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: RFC
- From: Keld Jørn Simonsen <email@example.com>