Re: Does the Linux Standard Base imply Linux?
Kevin Dankwardt wrote:
> As you may know the Embedded Linux Consortium has begun work on a
> standard for embedded Linux systems. Related to that is the issue of
> whether an embedded Linux standard should require that a conforming
> implementation actually be based on Linux or merely have implemented the
> interface.
>
> From my brief survey of the goals and other statements from the LSB I
> can't tell whether this is an issue that has come up for the LSB and
> whether there has been a consensus of opinion. I'd like to learn from
> your experience.
>
> Does the LSB require Linux? Why or why not? If it requires it, what is
> your definition of Linux? Uses an unpatched Linux kernel? Uses a kernel
> that is predominately a released kernel?
IMHO any OS that passes all the LSB conformance tests should be considered
LSB conformant.
Solaris and FreeBSD are welcome to become LSB conformant; it would make it
easier for people to install Linux software on those operating systems.
In fact, that would be a good test of the quality of the LSB as a standard;
if FreeBSD can pass the LSB conformance tests, yet LSB apps don't work on
FreeBSD or Solaris, something is wrong with the LSB.
(A little google search shows that this subject has come up before,
though I don't know how useful the link will be for you:
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0012.1/1481.html)
- Dan
Reply to: