Re: X Proposal

[Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@transmeta.com>]

Robert W. Current <current@hel-inc.com> writes:

> I propose X, in a full useable implementation be a "Level 2" LSB
> compliant standard.
> 
> This will allow LSB "Level 2" to be more useful to software developers
> who wish to provide X applications.
> 
> I further propose that "Level 1" LSB compliance include network
> services, but not X.
> 
> This will allow developers (including myself) to have a standard base
> set to refer to when constructing networked devices that do not require
> X in any form.
> 
> I am willing to work with others on a "Sample implementation" of "Level
> 1" compliance, because I am (slowly) building such a distribution
> anyway.

There are serious downsides to your proposal that I believe outweigh
the advantages.  If we strip the LSB down to cover any possible
use of Linux, it becomes a useless standard.

If we create a specification that leaves out X, it needs to be called
something other than "LSB 1.0" for both technical and marketing
reasons.  Technically, it's more complicated and confusing (for
everyone: developers, users, and vendors) to have separate levels.
Marketing-wise, it's suicide.

Why don't you please flame me now for bringing up marketing.

Thanks.

Dan