Re: LSB on /.
> The LSB 0.9 announcement is on /.
> Please do respond to posts with questions.
I read many of the posts and replied to a couple posts.
The quality of what I saw was pathetic, even for
slashdot. There were a few exceptions posted
by people who seemed to be well informed
about the LSB, perhaps people who read
Most threads consisted of someone shooting
their mouth off about some imagined problem
and others agreeing with the OP. (I'm pretty
sure that a lot of this was the result of guesses
at the meaning of "Linux Standard Base". Of
course, assuming I am correct, my beloved
"common ground" concept would have helped
considerably in just about every case, because
it speaks directly to the very issues they raised.)
I also got the impression that few had heard
of the LSB and just about none properly
understood it was about done and merely
awaiting public comment. Perhaps this was
a good thing...
The main topics were, in the order they came up:
1. LSB refuses to encompass BSD and Solaris.
"They have closed minds".
[I quoted a recent post in response:
2. They picked RPM. They're red hat droids.
"it appears both redhat and debian are
contributors, but i would imagine redhat
contributes a bit more. i really think this is
going to hurt things."
[I pointed out there had been plenty of debate.]
3. They didn't pick font standards.
In this thread, one poster completely misunderstood
what it meant to have a "standard base".
"ghostscript and X fonts are very different and
used for different purposes. I don't see a reason
to combine them into one."
4. Reversing Linux fragmentation is a good idea.
A more intelligent poster said:
"My question is, is it not so much that we're
making it so all software can run on many
distributions, as making all distributions
essentially the same?"
5. It should be GNU/Linux Standard Base.
Most posters debated what the name really
"Standard Base for Systems Built Upon a
6. Why did Slackware boycott the LSB?
- LSB on /.
- From: Scott McNeil <email@example.com>