Deciding On The Future of Linux

A reader writes: The Free Standards Group has posted a request for feedback, now that they have completed LSB 1.2 and li18nux is also finished. Where should they/we go next? "

Comments

This is a corrigendum

[wackybrit]

Alan Cox is illusively quoted as saying, "The community is great for getting the work done, but when it comes to making decisions about where Linux is going, that responsibility should entirely rest on the shoulders of Linus. It's his operating system, and we shouldn't be able to take that away."

I want to agree with that quote. The guys programming Linux and the kernel and so forth are all hard workers and decide to where it's going.

I can't see why the FSF is trying to become the new Linux authority. First they've tried to claim that much of Linux was written by GNU, this is not true, I put to you, they tried changing Linux to GNU/Linux. Notice that GNU is placed before the word Linux, this implies a strong bias towards the former entity.

Linux was named after Linus Torvalds and he is the monkey at the top of the pole, NOT the FSF. If anyone wants to ask where Linux should be headed, it should be him and not the FSF who are simply angling for bonus points in the petty argument.

Re:This is a corrigendum

[capt.Hij]

We want to know what interfaces and features future versions of the LSB and Li18nux should include. For that matter, we would like to know what interfaces and features Linux itself is missing.

They don't want to be the authority for the kernel. They want to know what new features to add to the interface and the features. THere is a very large development community that does not do kernel programming that cares a lot about these issues, although many certainly don't care what the FSF's views on this are.

By the way, GNU has had a huge impact on the useability of linux even if they don't have the impact they would have hoped on the kernel. I don't like some of the arrogance coming out of Stallman's office either, but the GNU folks to deserve a lot of credit.

Universal Copy/Cut&Paste

[Anonymous Coward]

What should they standardize next? Copy/Cut&Paste! It is one of the most important features of a modern desktop OS.

I think you misunderstand the role of the LSB

[Salsaman]

The LSB does not dictate anything to any package distributors. All the LSB does is to provide minimal standards to ensure that what works in one distro will also work in others. For example, they might specify that libc should always be in a certain directory, or that init scripts should live in /etc/rc.d/init.d.

This is solely designed to make things easier for third party app developers, since they know what they need to target. No distro is forced to follow the LSB, but if they want the maximum number of third party apps to run, then they will follow it, and get LSB certified.

Apart from this minimal framework, distro's are still free to do what they like. And since the FSG is not tied to any particular distro, they're not likely to favour one distribution over another.

To call that dictatorship is ridiculous, you might as well accuse the w3c of dictating all content on the internet, since they set the html standards.

valid naming

[ttfkam]

Even though /usr, /var, /tmp, /etc are ridiculously cryptic, changing them would be horrible?

Get this:
Change /etc to /settings or /config
Change /var/log to /logs
Change /var to /data (or something like it)
Change /tmp to /temp (saving one character? sheesh!)
Change /usr to /programs
Change /bin to /system_programs

and then (drumroll) make symbolic links so that old scripts and programs still work. You leave that in place for a couple of years, and then you remove the symbolic links. All that's left are logical names that actually convey information. And before people complain about the amount of extra typing, please tell me that you know how to use <tab> for filename completion (se<tab> gets you settings for example).

Users who can't remember that config files live in /etc may have difficulty configuring their box to be sure. But they'll have less difficulty if the directory is named /configuration or /settings won't they? The operating system shouldn't be some kind of high bar or IQ test. It should be a tool to get a job done. /etc to /settings doesn't make your life and my life appreciably harder and it makes life for newbies that much easier.

And how, by any stretch of the imagination, is /etc less oddball than /settings? What universe do you live in? The directory name "etc" is an artifact of history, not a brilliant design plan. 1K of memory was expensive so the directory names were kept as short as possible. Now 1K is a rounding error. The reasons for "etc" no longer exist today. You might as well tell me that people should still hone their PDP-11 assembly skills before doing any programming in a high-level language.

You're used to /etc. Good for you. After the rest of the world moves on, you can make your symbolic links. The rest of the world -- this includes all of those folks who accurately regard a computer and operating system as merely tools -- is used to descriptive names. /etc ain't descriptive. It's the UNIX club's code word for /settings. They like code words. It's like a secret handshake. It maintains a feeling of superiority however obviously false that feeling may be.

Office Documents Format

[InodoroPereyra]

This is something we need ... yesterday. An XML (or whatever SGML they choose) office format standard. I know there is work in progress from the Open Office Project, but I would rather have this work merged in a standard dictated by the Free Standards group. That alone would represent a HUGE step forward. Let's hope.