Re: X Proposal
Defining a base distribution (without X) should actually reduce the scope of the
project (admittedly not by much), and allow us
to focus on defining the standards of the core OS. Then applying a set of
standards for a distribution utilizing X can be built
on top. Is there any X consortium representation in the LSB? (as a newer member
I'm just becoming familiar with the regular
contributers)
I'll leave the question of whether the benefits outweigh the effort to those who
have been working on this project longer, but I
will pose the question:
Can there be a one-size-fits all standard when there is constant development of
Linux in new and different areas, such as
embedded devices, PDAs, etc, and would it make more sense to re-organize the LSB
into a modular design that can be more
flexible (yet still comprehensive) in terms of addressing the needs of these
emerging technologies?
I agree that a simple numbering scheme isn't appropriate - as the standards (in
both cases) will continue to grow and adapt.
Perhaps something more descriptive LSB-core 1.0 and LSB-X 1.0. (I don't know,
it's just a suggestion)
Phil
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: