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

Re: X Proposal

Aaron Gaudio wrote:
> > Many people want an X API there.  I don't deny that.  I never have.  I
> > am saying that an X API isn't a "base" issue, it's a standardization
> > issue.  But, in terms of how the fundamental structure of a system
> > should be built, X sits on a layer above the OS.  That makes a strong
> > case for outlining the structure of the standard to reflect X is a layer
> > above the OS itself.
> X is an optional part of the OS.

No, I don't agree.  It's optional.  But not part of the OS itself.

> I would not even say it is not part of the OS anymore.

I would.

> It is not part of the kernel (even this distinction is becoming
> blurred with DRI, but anyways), but it certainly is part of the OS.

/me thinks about that.

No, I still can't agree to that.

> The fact
> that its operation is not required to run Linux doesn't make it not part
> of a Linux OS.

Wait, the double negative confused me.  

Is it, or is it, or is it not part of the OS?

If the OS can run without it, then why isn't the OS... No.  I don't

> As I stated before, what is and is not part of the OS should
> be up to the distribution in question. 

Ok, now, there are numerous distributions that claim to be Linux that do
not include X as a base component.  So, in saying that X is part of the
OS, your saying that these distributions aren't really a "Linux OS."

I don't agree with that.

> LSB is not out to define "what is
> Linux" it is out to define the common set of libraries and utilities and
> what not that the different flavors of Linux will agree upon. 

Well, if someone is working on a networked device based on a Linux
kernel (which I know more people than me are), why should we too not
have a "base set of libraries and utilities" to use for our
distributions and projects?

> If a branch
> of such libraries show themselves to be important within the context of the
> LSB's goal for software compatibility, then it should be considered in the
> standard.

Yes, I would agree with that.  If I want to allow the installation a DB
system (commercial or open source) on my "Linux based OS" I would want
to be able to go to DB vendors and say "Don't write it for me, write it
to comply to the LSB spec, and it will run fine on my distribution."

I only use database software as an example, but it equally applies to a
wide range of network services, that can be developed commercially or
open source, that can function perfectly fine without X.

> There should probably be layers to the standard which define
> optional parts (there are lots of people who don't need make, for instance,
> because they don't do development on that particular box), and you make
> a good argument for that.

I think that is my argument...

> But to leave it out of the specifications
> altogether is a mistake, IMO.

Well, I don't want to say X shouldn't be spec'ed.  I want to say it
shouldn't be a "base" spec, it should be a layer on top of the base

Reply to: