Re: File Systems.
* tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> software? Again: Is Netscape part of the OS?
>
> Why do we care? This isn't particularly important, IMO.
>
> For the purposes of whether some particular application can be installed
> on a Linux system, unless the application needs the use of Netscape, it
> doesn't matter.
Is LSB just about ISVs and distributors? Is it not about documentation,
training, administration, using, selling Linux and services around
Linux? Ask users out there what they think about that. Making a clear
distinction between the OS and applications makes Linux from a buzzword
to a real thing.
> Avoiding an answer to this question is an answer on its own. Making LSB
> useful is IMHO not possible without defining what the system is and if
> you do so, additional software is additional software distributed as a
> set with the OS, but not part of the OS.
>
> What is your definition of "useful"? You haven't explicitly stated what
> your goals are, which makes it hard to understand why you keep pushing
> for what's not part of the OS.
Actually my dream is a base Linux, commonly developed and used by
different distributors and ISVs and others. A common minimal system
where distributors can add value and comfort to. Probably I will never
see such a thing, but if LSB doesn't even try to make that possible, it
won't be much "useful". I do not say that LSB can't be useful without
requiring non-LSB stuff installing to /opt or such. I just say that
being not able to tell the OS and applications apart makes it very hard
to even talk about Linux, because you always get immediately back "What
Linux? Redhat or Debian or SuSE?". This is good for other operating
systems ("divide and conquer" is still a truth) but not for
Linux-distributors and ISVs and everyone else in this business.
Jochem
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: