Slashdot Mirror
Three Major Linux Distributions Certified LSB Compliant
KevinDumpsCore writes "RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE are now certified LSB compliant!" Here's the announcement on the Free Standards Group's site. The Linux Standards Base (check out these related Slashdot posts) has been working for years to perhaps tame the what-lives-where cross-distro craziness. (Of course, distro makers are under no obligation to comply with the LSB's choices.)
a nice open standard like LSB, imagine the improvement in install docs, cross distro rpms...this is a good thing.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
LSB requires compliant distributions to provide, not use, rpm, and Debian does.
(http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_prodlist.t pl?CALLER=display_product.tpl)
-Mandrake Linux ProSuite 8.2 + first update CD
-Red Hat Linux 7.3 with glibc 2.2.5-39+kernel 2.4.18-10 or later
-SuSE Linux 8.0 Professional + aaa_base and Kernel Update
--- Brad (http://www.LinuxReview.net)
LSB seems to require redhat packages. They can't use triggers and some other things, but it is required they used rpm.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I've only used up2date with Red Hat Network, but it seems to work just fine in this limited capacity.
Urpmi was an improvement over tortuous, raw rpm. But, since Connectiva helped port apt to rpm, installation seems so much better and easier. There are now apt-rpm repositories available for Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, Connectiva, and even Solaris. There no longer seem to be any compelling reasons to use urpmi. Why not standardize all distributions on apt -- regardless of whether you're using rpm or deb packages?
On a cultural note: I'm sure Debian users have lots of good reasons for choosing it as their favorite distro, but please spare the rpm bashing until you've tried apt-rpm.
Look up Metatheme - it's supposed to do that eventually.
/Janne
And there _is_ work on improving compatibility; with KDE3, the clipboard now works the same in just about every desktop, there is a common menu description format, Gnome is moving towards using arts as the soundserver, they use the same XML lib, and so on. There's even a site for coordinating desktop-interoperability in Linux (though I don't have the link handy).
The most difficult problem is of course theming. It would be all but impossible to make a common theme format; you'd probably end up with a 'compatibility engine' that can take themes written for it - and that nobody will use, as the native themes will be cooler and faster anyway. Something like Metatheme will probably have a better chance, and even then, it greatly depends on multiple people working together to create a unified theme.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Thank you for making this point! Debian is a fine distribution, but to any outsider it's bound to look like a bunch of kooks and cultists -- especially when people don't get their facts straight. At the risk of trolling, a lot of this tripe comes from people who haven't so much as touched a Red Hat distribution in years. Weak. There are certainly differentiating factors which may make Debian a better choice than other distributions, but -- in many cases -- apt isn't one of them, thanks to apt-rpm.
Red Hat, SuSE, Yellow Dog, Solaris, and Mandrake users can give it a spin by heading to:
http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/
I have been using apt for rpm (apt4rpm.sf.net) for ages, works insanly well !! resolve de dependency hell !
Debian 3.0 did pretty well compared to SuSE.
Link shamelessly stolen from this post.
Exactly who the hell puts apt in a cron job?
I mean, I have a short script that I wrote that checks to see if there are any updates, and emails me the results. I have it run every night on my domain box, and thus, every morning, I find out if there are needed upgrades. At that point, I can go check out why the upgrades are needed, and perform the udpate manually.
However, I would never have apt upgrade my system without me being there, and I highly doubt anyone else with any brains would. So please, stop spouting bullshit about how the "typical Debian user" does something that retarded, because I've never met a single person who has done that, and I've known a lot of people running Debian.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
LSB requires the lpr command, not the lpr software. CUPS, LPRng, Berkeley lpr, and GNU lpr all satisfy the LSB requirement IIRC.
I print, therefore I am.
Grr, I'm so tired of people not getting this. The LSB usage of RPM is simply not a problem for Debian. We have no problems handling .rpm packages. See the rpm and alien packages (particularly alien) to see how we do it. The RPM thing is a non-issue regarding Debian's LSB compliance.
To see how seriously Debian takes LSB compliance, go have a look at the archives of the various LSB related Debian mailing lists
noah
LSB is an attempt to standardize many aspects of a Linux distribution, such as binary (executable) file format, dynamic libraries, packages, and system initialization. They also standardize file system format, and the LSB 1.2 is FHS 2.2 compliant.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
IANALE - I am not a Linux expert. (But I ain-t Joe Six-Pack either.)
From my reading of the LSB it seems to address base level system issues:
- Having at least the minimum standard set of base, utility, and graphic libraries.
- Having at least the minimum standard set of system commands.
- Having standard init script actions, comments.
I don't see anything in the LSB regarding the location of window manager configuration files. Maybe they will add something regarding that to the standard in the future.
For now the focus of the LSB seems to be standardizing distros so that applications will install to standard locations, can expect standard libraries to exist, and can expect that system configuration information will be the same across distros.