RE: Core/Layer vs. GUI
This looks good! This is the kind of standard I was personaly looking for in
the LSB. It looks at linux froma very different perspective (admins,
embedded system builders/designers, mini distro's).
I think the BUILD level 2 can in fact result in the "Linux Core"(or "LSB
Core"?) component/level/profile (with or without the X libs).
Robert: Keep me/us up to date!
Vincent de Lau (email@example.com)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert W. Current Jr. Ph.D. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:46 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Core/Layer vs. GUI
> Looks like this whole discussion process has just become
> completely counter-productive. Both the "there should be a
> people and the "We just need to get the spec done ASAP for
> the ISV's who
> will use it" people are not coming to an agreement.
> So, I concede that if the LSB developers wish to define a useful
> API for ISV's, that is a noble goal, and I do not wish to
> stand in their
> way any longer. I think the continued discussion of why it
> should be done
> another way is not going to foster any progress.
> Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the LSB
> project is a
> good project, but not the only way of doing things. I have drafted an
> early proposal for another project, that may in fact
> complement the LSB
> upon completion. Anyone interested is welcome to join, discuss, etc
> Hopefully, this will allow the LSB project to continue on
> it's own course,
> and develop a useable spec for software developers sometime
> soon, and take
> some of the conflict out of this discussion.
> DRAFT: (not final)
> An x86 branch of BUILD has begun, and the ETA of Level 1 is
> approximately one month, with Level 2 following shortly
> afterwards. There
> are currently several people willing to work on this project,
> and there
> has been some (un-named) interest from some hardware vendors.
> I'd prefer not to make it "public" (as in SlashDot or FreshMeat)
> until some of the structure (mailing lists, hosting, etc), and legal
> (Trademark terms, technical wording of draft) issues are sorted out.
> Hopefully, this will back some of the pressure off of this
> discussion ;-)
> Rob C.