[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: man pages

These are two equally valid points of view, perhaps reconcilable by an
addendum organizing the LSB into "Required" and "Recommended" (or
"Optional")sections. That way achieving  compliance with the LSB would not
become a moving target, and "voluntary evolutionary options" could be put on
the table.  Make no mistake about it, compatibility issues loom large on
Fortune 500 radar screens, and compliance with the LSB would go far to
legitimize Linux in the corporate world. At the same time, support and
user-friendly issues in general cry out for improvement and addressing these
issues would go far in gaining greater user (and corporate IT) acceptance.
All of which would bode well for Linux. Required and Optional sections of
the LSB is one way of moving forward on both fronts without diluting the
orginal purpose of the LSB.

		Peter Childress
		Enterprise Strategic Planning & Emerging Technologies
	      mailto:childp@wellsfargo.com MAC# A0186-039
		Office (415) 243-6927   ---   Cell (415) 640-2432
            "When I take the next step there will either be ground under  
            my foot or I will learn to fly."
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Watts [mailto:watts@jayhawks.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:49 PM
To: Jan Schaumann
Cc: lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: man pages

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Jan Schaumann wrote:

> However, I disagree on the point of not being allowed to change the
> definition or to argue about it just because it has been worked on for
> years.  That's just not a good argument.  I think it's important that
> something like the LSB needs to evolve as it develops - if the issue
> of man-pages has been discussed before and reason has given arguments
> that they should not be made mandatory, then I would enjoy the read of
> that discussion (after which I would shut up or bring the issue back
> for further discussion).

Just be aware that what you're talking about isn't "evolution".  It would
be more accurately described as "revolution".  The goal of the LSB is very
specific and (mostly) clearly defined.

However many people including yourself would like to use the LSB as a
vehicle for making progressive change in Linux distributions.  This is not
an evolutional change, this is definitely revolutional.  The LSB would be
switching from an effort to facilitate cross-distribution portability into
a steering body that dictates the course.  Very different indeed.

Please be aware that when you (or other folks) ask for things like this
that it is contrary to what the current goals are, and generally won't be
warmly received.


| Jeffrey Watts                     |
| watts@jayhawks.net         o-----------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer         | "It's the same each time with progress. |
| Network Systems Management |  First they ignore you, then they say   |
| Sprint Communications      |  you're mad, then dangerous, then       |
o----------------------------|  there's a pause and then you can't     |
                             |  find anyone who disagrees with you."   |
                             |  -- Tony Benn (b. 1925)                 |
                             |  British Labour politician              |

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

Reply to: