Wake Up and Smell the Coffee It's Not 1970!
> Nope. Either tell me that your going to close the spec, or make it
> logical why as a system admin I should accept installing X as base on 20
> different servers for no good reason other than Donnie said "Deal."
>
> if you don't wanna hear from users, then don't ask people to join
> discussion lists..
>
> What is this a pissing contest? I am not interested! I am working with
> 4 other people, working our frigging asses off trying to develop what I
> believe will be 2 solid, usable, and logical distributions. I think the
> LSB could be very very useful, and as such, would be willing to help
> it/support it. But if things are going to turn into an ugly mess that
> includes bloat and will take another 5 years to complete, why bother?
>
So, I guess making a box administerable from something besides the
command line is bloat? You really are a strange individual. With the HD
space that ships with servers today having X is not a big deal. Also,
attempting to train a large first level support staff on administering
from the console is not always economical (and often dangerous :) ). I
think your idea of he LSB is a throwback to the days of the 386, that
would be fine and dandy if a large portion of people simply couldn't
take any more than a kernel and shell, but lets get real... that is not
the case! It's no longer the day of command line only!
Are you certain you have a PhD? Where from if you don't mind my asking?
> I'm looking at what has been done, and what hasn't. And I am impressed
> with most of the progress, but I think the LSB is going to shoot itself
> in the foot if it comes out with all these requirements.
>
> I'd rather see the 20+ little pissy distributions stamp "LSB compliant"
> on their disks in 6 months, than see a LSB spec that will take 2 years
> and only the biggest 4 will comply to.
>
That's the problem right there, if you want tons of individuals to be
able to identify themselves as linux by meeting only a small criteria
then ISV simply will not support them! It is difficult to deploy
software when you don't have a rigorous idea of what to expect. I agree
with the other poster, no one but yourself see it this way.
> No one is using the LSB, a LSB compliant distribution doesn't exist.
> Why not start with the basics, get it out there, get it accepted, then
> grow it to encompass more? Why make something that is all encompassing
> (which in turn rules out the nitch distributions) that will be much
> harder for people to suddenly comply to later?
>
It's simple, the lsb doesn't mean squat if it is too general. There are
a LOT of companies developing linux apps right now, they NEED to know
what libs to link to, where packages are to be installed, libc calls,
etc.
Gregory S Hayes
-
Reply to: