RE: RFC

["Robert W. Current" <rob@entropy.current.nu>]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current wrote:
> 
> > because it's being done doesn't make it "right"
> > 
> > It's wrong, and causeing problems.  As time and software progress, it
> > will get worse.
> 
> Robert, you might want to stop using flamebait words such as "right" and
> "wrong", when it is clear that they are just your personal opinions.

to avoid flamebait, ok.

> 
> The LSB is about establishing a standard, and that means getting people to
> compromise on their views of "right" and "wrong" in order to reach a
> common standard.
> 
> If there was a "right" and "wrong", there wouldn't be 20+ Linux
> distributions.  Remember, even your beloved BSD can't agree with itself,
> as demonstrated by FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
> 
> There are many Linux distributions because there are many ways to do
> things, and many different styles.  Instead of whacking people about the
> head with what's "right", perhaps you ought to instead look at what we can
> agree upon, and go from there.  That is what the LSB is doing.

Well, there in lies a major problem, no one will ever agree to change if
it means work for them.  Diffrent styles are fine, and I have no objection
to "Non-LSB compliant Linux Distributions."  For that matter, I think
there is just cause for non-compliance, and it's a good idea to have some
people working "outside" the standard.

The issue is, LSB has goals, and making all the diffrent styles agree to a
common ground isn't the goal.  If that was the goal, it would be extreemly
difficult, and in the end completely useless to ISV's and System
Users/Admins.

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."

And, flamebait or not, when it comes down to "standards," that _IS_ the
definition of "right" and "wrong."  If it's an opinion (which mine are),
then it's just that, and not a standard.  IMHO, the LSB (which is a
standard) should define a core of what the "Linux OS" is, and define a
structure where people can easily build thier software "on the OS" rather
than trying to expand what the OS actually is.

Where people are getting touchy here is simple, we're talking about
"Defining Linux" and no one really want's to do that.  Fair enough.  But,
unless we define a "right way" we will get nowhere.  So, if you read the
word "Linux" in this conversation anywhere, please, try to rember, it's "A
LSB compliant Linux OS base" that were talking about, not defining the
word "Linux" itself.

Rob.