Slashdot Mirror
Linux Standard Base 2.0 released
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."
It should be stated that the gcc c++ abi for 3.4 series is incompatible with later versions.
Why do companies need to pay to be registered as compliant?
Why not use an open/free option?
Who would have thunk it...
Has two products listed on the compliancy page. Caldera set to expire near the end of this week, and SCO Linux Server set to expire next month. I wonder if they'll try to get renewed.
All your standard-base are belong to us!
Try the Google cache.
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"?
Easy? Bah! I want spend 30 hours searching for HOWTO's! I want to type "apropos -k" until my fingers are numb! I want to scan scripts until I hallucinate ascii!
Bah! Bah I say!
If they're not on this list, I have a hard time taking this list serioulsy
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.
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.
Interoperability is a great goal, but is anyone addressing patching/updating? Currently, it seems that these updates are handled as follows: download new packages, remove old packages, install new packages.
That seems fine for smaller bits of software but for a KDE bug fix or an OO.o update, downloads can go to the 100MBs or more. Fine on a DSL line, but dial-up users are still going to get hit hard.
I understand that OSS is better at fixing bugs and that's great -- but between Mandrake 10CE and now, it feels like I've downloaded another distro worth of updates. Is there something being done (maybe the whole binary diffs thing mentioned before) to decrease the size of update files?
I'm posting this as part of an LSB thread in the speculation that binary compatibility may one day lead to (smaller) patches that can be applied to LSB-compliant distros...so a KDE bug stays a KDE bug and not a MDK bug, SUSE bug, RH bug, Debian bug, etc.
I mean what are they going to come up with next, a standard packaging format?
Jesus, they're just taking all the fun out linux.
I wish Solaris was LSB compliant even though it's not Linux. Here's a good reason for standards:
There is a killall program on Linux, it kills all processes that have a processname that matches the argument you pass to it.
There is a killall program on Solaris, it doesn't take any arguments and will kill every process running.
On sale this week for only $3000.
Debian is listed as a "Silver Member" on their group member page.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
No, you're thinking clusterfuck.
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
I presume that LSB is simply spec'ing existing practice, correct? Or have things changed since that posting? Is this really an issue, even, since a system might be able to support an "old" and "new" C++ ABI by having both the "old" and "new" libraries installed?
Also: if the C++ symbols will be stored as (name space + package + class + method) in that order, ELF is used, and there are many hash collisions, this might create a lot of overhead loading large C++ libraries. The reason: while linking, you'd have to compare a lot of text before matching, because so many symbol entries would have a common prefix that you'd have to keep matching over and over again. Am I reading this correctly?
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Certification of gentoo is almost certainly out of the picture, as you can't know from one system to annother which libraries are installed.
This might be an interesting use for slots though. Someone could build a series of ebuilds that require the specific library versions that the LSB specifies, and keeps them in slots (so they're not unmerged when they're upgraded). Then a Gentoo user who has emerged "LSB-Base" would have a decent chance to be able to run any LSB 2.0 requiring binary package.
"For payment terms please contact The Free Standards Group"
Read the date on your link. Terpstra worked for Caldera in 2001, when they were a Linux company. As far as I can tell, he never worked for SCO, new or old.
Try Google. You may have heard of it. He now works for PrimaStasys, Inc.
I'm disgusted that you attempted to link someone who has done so much for Free software with SCO.
Firstly the LSB covers several platforms nowdays, secondly its goal is to create common packages. That means getting the same package running on Red Hat and SuSE regardless of whether its proprietary or free software.