Re: Renaming the LSB? (was: Re: Specification v 0.8)
Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:
> Jim Knoble wrote:
> >
> > Circa 2001-Apr-30 14:06:00 -0400 dixit Stuart Anderson:
> >
> > : On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > :
> > : > Fundamentally its a specification about a set of behaviours. Not
> > : > who wrote which bits of the existing implementation. Its arguable
> > : > that the 'Linux' bit is in part inappropriate
> > :
> > : I'm open to suggestions for a word that starts with the letter 'L',
> > : and means ubiquitous. So far, all I've come up with is
> > : "Level-playing-field" 8-).
>
> I'm in favor of having L stand for LSB, as Peter suggested.
> This is in the grand tradition of GNU, so RMS will surely be happy!
If it should be changed, this is my favorite - but why? This is a
standard for Linux. If FreeBSD are interested, I doubt they are
interested in more than an easier time for their Linux compatiblity
layer: After all, most Linux distributions and the LSB is leaning
towards SysV, not BSD. I'd suggest focusing on the goal of a standard
for Linux - if more is needed later, rename and refocus is then.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
Reply to: