Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Standard Base 2.0 released

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the standard-this-people dept.

prostoalex writes "Linux Standard Base 2.0 has been released by the Free Standards Group. The release will allow application developers to ensure their product works on multiple flavors of Linux. FSG keeps a list of compliant distributions on its Web site."

10 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do companies need to pay to be registered as compliant?

    Why not use an open/free option?

  2. Compliant Distributions by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm kind of disappointed looking at the list of compliant distributions - there aren't many on there, especially when you consider how many distributions there are out there.

    With that in mind, how much can this "allow application developers to ensure their product works"?

  3. slackware and debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're not on this list, I have a hard time taking this list serioulsy

  4. Where's the community? by nadamsieee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FSG keeps a list of compliant distributions on its Web site.

    All of the certified distros are commercial products. Where are the community distros in all of this?

    Could it have something to do with the Fee Schedule? The fees don't seem that steep.

    1. Re:Where's the community? by iabervon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ideally, they'd have a test suite for systems available, and a distribution could claim to be compliant if it passed. Or, better, end users who are concerned could run the test suite themselves to find out.

      For that matter, install scripts could include the test suite and check before installing whether your system seems plausible, with sufficient information to complain to your distro if it's not right.

  5. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Standards like the LSB are absolutely useless as long as the vast majority of distributions do not fully implement them. Even worse, is when the big distributions don't.

  6. Free Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On sale this week for only $3000.

  7. Re:This is nonsense by nadamsieee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, RPM is the standard packaging format for LSB. Thank God for gentoo...

  8. quote by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "For payment terms please contact The Free Standards Group"

  9. Re:This is nonsense by Nailer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, RPM is the standard packaging format for LSB. Thank God for gentoo...

    Why do you need a different packaging system to download and compile software and its dependencies based on your preferred compiler options?

    Last time I checked, you don't. up2date can download source packages, rpmbuild can rebuild them, and you can use cflags with RPM just like anything else.

    Sure, Gentoo automates that, but there's no reason they need a seperate packaging system to di it.

    Additonally Suse, Red Hat and everyone else already use optimized bianries where it matters, automatically installing the right kernel and c libaries based on processor type. Multimedia sites for Fedora / RHEL and Suse also include optimized packages for totem / mplayer etc to, and up2date / yast automatically picks them out.