Re: "LSB 1.0"
Very late followup - and no email address that looks valid to reply
to... :-(
In message <0ca401c0bd1b$80399d40$6601a8c0@me>, Me <me@self-
reference.com> writes
>I have some marketing related comments about LSB.
>
>Imo, the LSB:
>1. Can only succeed on merit. More importantly, can easily fail despite
>having adequate merit.
>2. May cause many of those using version 1.0 to pull their hair out and
>proclaim the LSB to be a bad thing.
>3. Has a name ("Linux Standards Base") that invites wild speculation by
>the ignorant and inevitable subsequent disappointment.
>4. Is perceived as a project that is almost too late.
>
>Given any _one_ of the foregoing, not to mention all 4, I think it is
>important to:
>
Having been forcibly educated on this list as to what the LSB was trying
to do, I feel an awful lot of the problem is the misunderstanding in
number 3. It is NOT called the "Linux Standards Base", and that extra S
is responsible for an awful lot of trouble ...
I feel the name matches the aim pretty well. It's just that are too many
people out there who get the name wrong, and then hang us for being a
straw man :-( People who've noticed me on newsgroups/LinuxToday may
have noticed I now tend to point out this error to other people rather
forcibly (if politely :-)
Cheers,
Wol.
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Reply to: