Re: X and LSB

[Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net>]

* tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> This is I think a much more realistic approach than the "big-bang"
> approach of trying to define what "Linux" means first.   We don't need
> to have a common agreement of what "Linux" means, and whether or not X11
> is included, in order to have an LSB-compliant application work on multiple
> LSB-compliant distributions. 

I have problems to understand that. 

> We just need to agree on what LSB means.  This is what those of us who
> are working on the specification are doing.

We also need to agree on what LSB does not mean. This is what the others
of us are doing ;-)


        Jochem

PS: I'm not working for a distributor nor for an ISV. I'm a freelancer
doing documentation and authoring and teaching and I may well have other
problems as distributors and ISVs with this wild Linux thing. I'm also
interested in getting an useful Linux Standard Base, though. Is LSB
really just about ISVs and distributors? 

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!