Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation

An anonymous reader submits a link to this story at Linuxlookup.com which says that "Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux today announce the creation of a common implementation of the LSB 2.0 which will serve as the base for future products. The project, called 'Linux Core Consortium' (LCC), is backed by Linux supporters such as Computer Associates, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, OSDL, and the Free Standards Group."

Comments

LSB?

[DaHat]

It's taken this long to decide on what is the Least Significant Bit?

Is that not it? It sure would be nice if the editors would stop posting articles that do not describe what they are intending to be describing.

Re:LSB?

[calibanDNS]

LSB is the Linux Standard Base.

Re:LSB?

[CrankyFool]

My thoughts exactly -- the problem is that we don't have a well-defined idea of what acronyms at this point are well-known enough. You wouldn't see anyone bitching about not expanding AGP, PCI, or SCSI, but hell, I don't know what LSB is...

Well, I do now -- Linux Standard Base. See this link

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no it not Least Significant Bit. Haven't you heard it Linux She Bangs sang by William Hung.

Re:LSB?

[RandoX]

LSB is obviously USB for Linux. Version 2.0 should offer twice as much throughput as LSB 1.0.

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's only one "n" in "Conectiva".

Re:LSB?

[svin]

It's taken this long to decide on what is the Least Significant Bit?

Don't worry, they're still arguing over that.

Re:LSB?

[DaHat]

oh I know... I deal with those damn endians weekly

Re:LSB?

[tlhIngan]

You jest, but there are architectures that have their bits numbered the *other* way around (where bit 0 is the most significant bit, while bit n (n=15, 31, etc) is the least significant bit).

Causes more than mild confusion for the hardware designers who have to suddenly deal with A0..A29 (or A30, A31 on 32-bit systems, depending on the external bus), and likewise with D0..D31. More than once have they been wired baskwards (or the byte enables, as well). Heck, it's a great way to get software developers confused as well...

(If you really must know, it appears PowerPC is numbered this way).

Re:LSB?

[Eowaennor]

SCSI? That means System Can't See It... right?

Re:LSB?

[maxwell demon]

No, read again: They decided on how to implement it. Given that there are many different ways to implement a bit (bits on your hard disk are implemented completely different from CD-ROM bits, DRAM bits or register bits), it's not surprising that they needed that long.

Currently they are arguing about the best implementation of the next significant bit.

Re:LSB?

[AvantLegion]

>> Is that not it? It sure would be nice if the editors would stop posting articles that do not describe what they are intending to be describing.

It sure would be nice if readers would stop playing dumb as a brick.

It's "News for Nerds", not "News for N00bs Who Need Their Hands Held".

Re:LSB?

[sir newton]

Why can all acronyms have links to what they stand for?? This would solve a lot of confusion.

Re:LSB?

[stevesliva]

More than once have they been wired backwards

I hear the Genesis mission had some issues with that.

it's a great way to get software developers confused

Confused? It promotes flexible compiler design-- It's a feature!

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct way to use acronyms is to fully expand the acronym at it's first use, followed by the acronym in brackets. The acronym itself can be used from then on. For example:

"Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux today announce the creation of a common implementation of the Linux Standards Base (LSB) 2.0 which will serve as the base for future products. The project, called 'Linux Core Consortium' (LCC), is backed by Linux supporters such as Computer Associates, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, OSDL, and the Free Standards Group."

Note that the original author did do this correct for the acronym 'LCC', but for some reason failed to handle the acronym 'LSB' correctly.

Re:LSB?

[maxwell demon]

More importantly, it's a Karma generator: It gives you the possibility to get a cheap +1 Informative.

Re:LSB?

[Ithika]

Yeah, news for nerds. Possibly the kind of nerds that could handle HTML's abbbr tag to explain in an unobtrusive fashion what this particular LSB stands for. Especially as the side they link to is currently a melted pile of slag.

Re:LSB?

[JustKidding]

You jest, but there are architectures that have their bits numbered the *other* way around (where bit 0 is the most significant bit, while bit n (n=15, 31, etc) is the least significant bit).
(If you really must know, it appears PowerPC is numbered this way).

That's simply not true. What you are referring to is called "endianess", which is the way the bytes are arranged in 16 or more bit words. There are two possible ways to store the bytes of a 16 bit word: least significant byte first (called little endian), and most significant byte first (called big endian).
The bits in a byte are always numbered from 0 to 7, with 0 being the least significant and 7 being the most significant bit.
Also, bits on physical lines (like address or data busses) are always numbered sequentially, and it therefore impossible to wire things up backwards because of endianness (it is, however, still possible with pure stupidity).

Endianness can be a problem, however, in computer networks; for example when transmitting a 32 bit word from an Intel machine to a PowerPC. The two machines differ in endianess (the Intel being little endian and the PowerPC being big endian), which means the byteorder is different, which can lead to incorrect values for the word after transmission, if the programmers don't take care to convert every word to network endianess before transmitting and from network to machine endianess after receiving.

For more information: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~verts/cs32/endian.html

Re:LSB?

[Anthony Fremont]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. GE/Honeywell/Bull mainframes have always numbered the bits from left to right. After looking at it that way for about 25 years, I don't know why anyone would do it any other way. ;-)

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

That, sir, would require that we do our jobs. Surely you aren't suggesting that.

-- The Management

Re:LSB?

[ArhcAngel]

And then you have what I like to call "Hijacked" acronyms. ATM is my favorite because I know of at least three different meanings depending on who you are conversing with.

Re:LSB?

[Muad'Dave]

Endian-ness and bit ordering are not related. Endian-ness only applies to how bytes are stored in a multibyte value.

MSB MSB-1 ... LSB+1 LSB is big endian.

LSB LSB+1 ... MSB-1 MSB is litle endian.

For bit ordering within a byte (left to right):
2^n where n is the bit number is the 'normal' way
2^7=bit 7 2^6=bit 6 ... 2^0=bit 0

2^(n - 7) is the backward way
2^7=bit 0 2^6=bit 1 ... 2^0=bit 7

Re:LSB?

[joeljkp]

(X)HTML offers the <acronym> tag. In Gecko-based browsers, when you hover your mouse over such a tag, a box pops up with the expanded definition.

Slashdot, however, doesn't support it in comments.

Re:LSB?

[TheRaven64]

More importantly, it's a Karma generator

+1 Insightful!

Re:LSB?

[paradizelost]

I think they really meant to say LSD not LSB

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are incorrect. The PowerPC architecture specifiction states that bit 0 is the MSB. Check out this page, or any of the datasheets and databooks for PowerPC products.

Re:LSB?

[Ctrl-Z]

It only depends on what you are talking about at the moment.

Re:LSB?

[ArhcAngel]

Not if you weren't aware there was more than one usage. How many average Joes do you think know what an "Asynchronous Transfer Mode" is versus an "Automatic Teller Machine"? What makes it even more interesting is that many ATM's use ATM to communicate.

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least use the HTML or tags so that those of us with decent compliant browsers can hover a mouse pointer over the acronym and see the expansion!

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does HTML not have the ABBR tag especially for this occaision? So you can write including abbreviations, acronyms etc, and get a mouse-over effect to expand the explaination?

Re:LSB?

[antoy]

LSB is not *that* well-known an acronym, because it's Linux-specific, and its development process is of little significance to people who do not care about these standarization efforts. I read about it on slashdot a few times so I was aware of it, but when the title appeared on the sidebar thingie I use, the only thing that came to me was 'Least Significant Bit'. Reading it in context cleared it up for me, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having the titles on a sidebar.

If LSB = 'least significant bit' to n00bs and 'Linux Standard Base' to m4d hax0rz, then I guess I'm a n00b then.

Re:LSB?

[joto]

There are two possible ways to store the bytes of a 16 bit word: least significant byte first (called little endian), and most significant byte first (called big endian).

Actually, there are a lot of other ways. Let's start with the most significant bit. We can place it at pos 1..16. Now there are 15 possible positions for the next bit, and so on... So we end up with 16! = 20922789888000 different arrangements

That is of course, if we limit ourselves to simply rearranging bits. Of course we can do other tricks as well, such as noting them, xoring them, or other more complex functions such as add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc. The absolute limit on representations is found when we consider all 1-1 functions from 1..2^16 to 1..2^16. That is: (2^16)!, a mindboggingly high number that I won't even bother to calculate.

On the other hand, for real hardware, you are probably right. But if you consider 32-bit numbers, there do exist architectures that are not just 'unix' or 'xinu', but also stuff like 'nuxi'.

Re:LSB?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you this right now: I'm not discussing my most or least significant "bits" on the Internet...no way, no how!

Re:LSB?

[NuShrike]

This is what wikipedia actually says: LSB

It's not just Linux Standard Base.

Re:LSB?

[tech49er]

you can have bit-endianness too.

Re:LSB?

[Deslack]

Or at least use the HTML <abbrev> or <acronym> tags so that those of us with decent compliant browsers can hover a mouse pointer over the acronym and see the expansion!

IE doesn't support the hover-on-acronym thing. and, slashdot doesn't allow either <abbr> or <acronym>

Re:LSB?

[Ctrl-Z]

Actually, I was trying to be funny by using the third definition. Unless there was another one.

Re:LSB?

[svin]

And there really is nothing to argue about - bigendian is clearly superior ;)

Re:LSB?

[mrmez]

I think that's the LSb. LSB would be the Least Significant Byte.

This is good news

[gowen]

Hell, it would be good news if it was just "Two Linux Vendors Agree ... on anything"

Re:This is good news

[Per Wigren]

or even one single vendor. Sad but true...

Re:This is good news

[IBeatUpNerds]

I agree. This is great news. I'm glad to see LSB still being actively pushed and maintained. Without such standards, it makes it increasingly difficult to maintain complex commercial (and non) applications for Linux. Too bad Loki games still isn't around. I think they did a great job at keeping their games LSB compliant.

Re:This is good news

[psbrogna]

Well... this is the thing: reaping the benefits of standards yet allowing room for innovation. It's a trick. Hopefully the LSB guys can work this out.

Re:This is good news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a trick.

YM "Trap". HTH.

Admiral Akbar.

Re:This is good news

[Anonymous Coward]

UnitedLinux was a similar, look where it went.

Re:This is good news

[Erik Hollensbe]

Yeah, those crazy POSIX guys were on to something, weren't they?

Re:This is good news

[morcego]

It is particularly interesting to see Conectiva, Mandrake etc called linux VENDORS, while Novell (SuSE) and RedHat are called linux SUPPORTERS.

I wonder where the line is drawn.

Finally

[Metteyya]

It's time to stop 'creativity' shown in difference of names and paths between all the distros.
Besides that, maybe standarisation can help Linux become considered as one of Unix systems.

So, RedHat, Debian, Xandros, Lindows and all the other big players - we're waiting for you joining this consortium and implementing LSB.

Re:Finally

[joestar]

Xandros and Lindows are "big players" losing much much money. So much that Lindows had to cancel their IPO at the last minute because they didn't reach their investment target. That's not what I call big players. At least, Mandrakesoft, Conectiva and Turbolinux are well-known and profitable companies.

Re:Finally

[Pxtl]

Deb won't. LSB is RPM based.

Re:Finally

[Homology]

It's time to stop 'creativity' shown in difference of names and paths between all the distros. Besides that, maybe standarisation can help Linux become considered as one of Unix systems.

Yes, it is very annoying that a (commercial) Linux distribution typically has a very messy filesystem layout.

In this the OpenBSD (and the other *BSD as well) does much better. When you install a port, you know where it is installed. The man hier is actually followed and useful. Packages/ports installs to /usr/local, with perphaps some config files added to /etc or some working directory added to /var. That's it. No exceptions.

Re:Finally

[bfields]

Deb won't. LSB is RPM based.

Try apt-get install rpm sometime....

Also, you might want to take a look at alien. A Debian box can deal with suitable RPM's. And isn't one of the participating distributions listed in the submission debian-based? (Progeny?)

--Bruce Fields

Re:Finally

[JSBiff]

Isn't it sad that a post that is so totally wrong as the grandparent, can get modded +2 on slashdot? lol

Re:Finally

[Spellbinder]

i think diffrence is a good thing

i think there should be a abstraction of paths and config files so you can create a binary installer that works on every distribution but where the files really go to is depending on the distribution

this wold make it possible to log into a suse machine, start a special shell and see all config file like they would be on a debian machine at least from the location viewpoint

Re:Finally

[bfields]

Isn't it sad that a post that is so totally wrong as the grandparent, can get modded +2 on slashdot? lol

When an incorrect post gets modded up, that's a sign that the misconception held by the poster is a commonly held one. Modding it up has the effect of bringing it to people's attention and making it more likely that a correction will be posted and modded up.

So, while I sometimes do wish there was an "incorrect" mod (or sometimes maybe "insufficient supporting evidence provided..."), I'm not sure that in practice it would work any better than the current situation.

--Bruce Fields

Re:Finally

[Phong]

Deb won't. LSB is RPM based.

Your argument is flawed. The OS can use any package system it wants for its own packages, it just needs to be able to install LSB packages from venders that will be in RPM format. Debian already has support for this through the "alien" software. In fact, Progeny Componentized Linux is already very far along in implementing LSB 2.0 support for their Debian-based release, so the format of LSB packages is not a barrier for Debian at all.

It really is amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is amazing how Connectiva, Turbolinux, Progeny and Mandrake can come together to form one signle standard base.

Its kind of like Voltron for crap.

Repetition

[Anonymous Coward]

Have we saw this movie before ??? Or the LSB is just a excuse to re-act something ???

Article Short on details

[ezavada]

I didn't see much about what it would actually consist of. Does anyone have links to such info?

Will this include glibc standardization?

Re:Article Short on details

[quies.net]

from the manual:

"The GNU C library, described in this document, defines all of the library functions that are specified by the ISO C standard, as well as additional features specific to POSIX and other derivatives of the Unix operating system, and extensions specific to the GNU system."

Re:Article Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read http://refspecs.freestandards.org/lsb.shtml ? In practice, glibc is already fairly backwards compatible.

Re:Article Short on details

[Gerald]

Isn't that like being fairly pregnant?

Re:Article Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you consider Glibc non-standard? It is a compliant C library implementation, and it is well engineered to ensure both forward and backward compatability with a nice stable ABI. What do you consider to be wrong with it?

Re:Article Short on details

[sjvn]

See:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1728412,00. as p

for a bit more.

As for glibc standardization, no that wouldn't be part of it.

Steven

Re:Article Short on details

[carlmenezes]

Well, apparently it's a kinda standard that specifies where our files are stored, what your default installation prefixes are, the filesystem hierarchy, where your init scripts are stored, etc...

basically, if I'm right, this means that once this is implemented, you'll find all your initscripts in /etc/rc.d/init.d on all conforming distros and you won't have to remember that one stores it in /etc/init.d while another stores it in /etc/rc.d/ etc etc...not just filesystem hierarchy, but a TON of other stuff...but you get the idea.

kinda a standard structure for Linux implementation.

You can get more specific info here :
LSB latest draft

Re:Article Short on details

[m50d]

It means you have to mount things in the bloody stupid /media. OK so there are a few other things, but that's the one you'll notice. Did no-one at the LSB realise a) that's a bloody stupid name, it's not clear at all (is that where my multimedia goes? Does it make sense to mount network shares there?), and we were fine with /mnt anyway, you need more than one temp mount point these days so you're going to have subdirs under /mnt anyway, and b) that without this standardisation you could type any top level dir with one letter and a tab? (/boot doesn't have to be /boot, you can call it something else if it's easier) Ahem. Rant over, we now return you to your scheduled browsing.

Re:Article Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

It's for people who want to write binary only software and have it run on "Linux". This allows them to say "our application runs on Linux 2.0", which really means LSB 2.0. This is better for them than having to either distribute source code, or prepare binary releases for a dozen different distributions.

rpm vs. deb

[120duff978]

Over time, the LCC is committed to increasing interoperability between and Debian and RPM-based technologies and will work toward a common binary core that can form the basis of both Debian and RPM-based distributions.

Well, this is definately a start in the right direction. Many of the really user friendly distro (ubunu, united, lindash) are all Debian based. Good to see that RPM maybe loosing it's popularity.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget about emerge -u world

The second parameter indicates how far you can walk before your system is fully updated...

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing that RPM is the standard package format for LSB, I really do not see how this would mean RPM losing its popularity. Could someone point out what's so good about the Debian package format that they won't switch over to the standard package format (RPM)?

Re:rpm vs. deb

[tajmorton]

What's so terrible about RPM? Anyways, Autopackage is really what the future is. RPM or DEB are fine for packageing the distro, but Autopackage for 3rd party applications.. -- Taj

Re:rpm vs. deb

[elandal]

As a long-time redhat user I've come to like rpm a lot. I like spec-files, I like rpm, I like yum.

But, deb's dependency management is a little finer grained. And aptitude is a great tool.

So, if I could get my familiar rpm and yum commandlines, aptitude, and deb dependencies I guess it'd be the best of both worlds for me.

One huge problem for rpm-based distroes is of course that each of them has different packages and dependency trees. Ever tried using five yum repositories and hoping they just somehow manage to get along? As debian has larger number of packages from single source than any of the rpm-based distroes, and debian maintainers seem to handle dependencies pretty well, the resulting repository-hell might be a little easier to handle. But that's not a problem with the package format - it's a problem with repositories and maintainers.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[mrchaotica]

Ack! No, it's not! Autopackage is merely a copy of the crappy Windows way of doing things, where you have to go find the installer for each package yourself. It's much better to have a central package repository, so that you can install a package with one simple command, e.g. apt-get foo or emerge foo. Debian and Gentoo are the real future!

Re:rpm vs. deb

[mangu]

if I could get my familiar rpm and yum commandlines, aptitude, and deb dependencies I guess it'd be the best of both worlds for me.

Conectiva, one of the four vendors listed in the agreement, supports rpm under apt. I have used it for three years now, apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade, and all your rpm packages are updated. Runs synaptic too, which is a great way to find which packages you need for a given system.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Pxtl]

I'm a linux noob, and never having worked with using external RPMs (I've always used ones that came with the distros) I've never been in dependancy hell either. My understanding of the problem is this:
1) Over-specific dependencies not liking package version 1.x of the project even though version 1.y does the job just fine, thankyou, and it might be a pain to run both package 1.x and 1.y on the same system.
2) The simple usability failure that they don't automatically fetch the dependancy packages for you or even tell you where to look.
3) confusion about how to update all packages.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[tajmorton]

Huh? Did you even look at Autopackage. It does dependency resolution. Also, packages can be installed non-root... You go to a website, and you see an autopackage you can download. Exactly like you download an RPM, or a DEB, or a TGZ. Reposotories, like

apt-get foo

or

emerge foo

are provided by the by the distribution. Thats what distros are for! Packaging software. Autopackages are only for extra software that the user installs.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[tajmorton]

Exactly. That's what Autopackages hope to fix. Autopackage statically links some stuff, makes other stuff non-required, lets stuff be installed non-root, and does dependency resolution. It's not at 1.0 yet, but when it is, hopefully it'll fix all that "dependency hell", and everything...

Re:rpm vs. deb

[elandal]

synaptic runs just fine under fedora as well. But I don't want a graphical tool - I mostly use my linux boxes over ssh anyway. Yum also supports apt repos, but for as long as fedora core stays rpm-based, switching is more trouble than worth for me.

Also, for some reason I don't like apt-get or apt-cache.. aptitude is pretty much the only apt-based management tool I really like.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[mrchaotica]

The general idea is that I'd like to see Linux (or Free software in general) move to one repository, to simplify finding the software. I see no reason why a user of Free software should ever need to search on webpages for software (except for initially downloading the distribution).

Secondly, it shouldn't be that hard for portage or apt to be upgraded to provide single-user installs (I can imagine just using an if statement: if user=="root" then base_directory="/"; else base_directory="~/")

Re:rpm vs. deb

[GreyWolf3000]

Please tell me what advantages dpkg has over rpm.

I dare you.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Evil Grinn]

I see no reason why a user of Free software should ever need to search on webpages for software (except for initially downloading the distribution).

Yeah, but not everything that someone might want to use on Linux is free software. Few commercial software shops are would put all their proprietary packages into your OneTrueGlobalPackageSystem.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[morcego]

localhost [/] > apt-cache search aptitude
aptitude - A curses-based apt frontend
localhost [/] > file /etc/conectiva-release
/etc/conectiva-release: ASCII text

Questions ?

Re:rpm vs. deb

[tajmorton]

The general idea is that I'd like to see Linux (or Free software in general) move to one repository, to simplify finding the software. I see no reason why a user of Free software should ever need to search on webpages for software (except for initially downloading the distribution). Why shouldn't the user be required to visit a webpage? It seems to me that visiting the projects webpage is one of the best ways to figure out if this program is what you want. Why would you type apt-get install supertux just because you heard abou it from some IRC channel? That would equiv. to typing rm -rf * to make your computer run faster...

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but not everything that someone might want to use on Linux is free software.

But what about free pr0n ?

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Mnemia]

This is a misconception. I think it might conflict with Debian's Free Software ethics, but Gentoo has quite a bit of commercial software in their repository (BitKeeper, Intel C/C++ compilers, many games off the top of my head). There is no reason why commercial developers can't just let you install their software through a repository and then have you purchase a license key through their website or retail channels. If they are worried about piracy they could even have the files you download be encrypted ala Half Life 2 and Steam. In the future I would imagine that repository-based systems might be expanded to directly handle licensing issues (Gentoo is working on this as well). No need to go through the usability hell of web-surfing just to download ANY software.

Just because software is commercial doesn't mean you can't have a standard way of installing it via a single command. Maybe you're equating the Windows Way with commercial software in general, but just because Windows has a broken model doesn't mean that Linux can't do better.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[mrchaotica]

I was thinking more along the lines of emerge search text editor and getting a big list with paragraph discriptions of each available text editor.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[mrchaotica]

Okay, I admit autopackage would be useful for stuff like Oracle. But I don't think it's use should be encouraged for getting YetAnotherTextEditor from www.JoeBobsFreeHacks.org

Re:rpm vs. deb

[ArsonSmith]

dpkg has more letters than rpm in its name. More is better.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you have things backwards. RPM has much more fine grained dependency checking. DPKG only looks at the package name and version number. RPM not only looks at the package name and version number it can also use libs,bin,config...bascially all the files in the package. This is the reason why RPM is more popular and preferred by developers and hence the reason why even the Debian member of the LSB voted for RPM as the standard Package Manager for Linux.

Re:rpm vs. deb

[bheerssen]

urpmi (mandrake's implementation of rpm) has 5 letters, so there!

Re:rpm vs. deb

[ArsonSmith]

apt-get has 7 nana boo boo

Re:rpm vs. deb

[GenSolo]

slapt-get is 8 letters/9 characters, so hah!

Re:rpm vs. deb

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me what advantages dpkg has over rpm.

It's easier to pronounce.

More information about the LCC...

[joestar]

Is available in the PR and in the FAQ.

It's interesting to notice the differences with UnitedLinux. LCC is not to push one Linux Standard, but to push the Linux standard (LSB).

Kolinsky?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.coattails.net

Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in pieces

[ClippyHater]

Only one comment and you bastards have killed the server. Now that I honestly can't RTFA, let me resume normal slashdot mode:

In further news, the LSB implementation of the LCC Project will require LSD usage to be fully appreciated.

Thanks you, thank you, I'll be silly all night. Be sure to tip your kernel hackers.

actually...

[softwave]

http://www.linuxbase.org/
LSB stands for Linux Standard Base. I quote rom the website:

What is the LSB Project?
The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.

Re:actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I quote from Omicron Persei 8:

All your bases are belongs to us.

In other words...

[Otter]

...this is United Linux II, with Caldera/SCO having joined the bad guys, SuSE striking out on its own and Mandrake (the former champ) and Progeny (the cult favorite) joining the crew.

It sounds like a pro wrestling plot! Hey, what's Darl hiding behind his back? It looks like a ... Ian, look out!

Re:In other words...

[DaEMoN128]

SuSE is LSB 2.0 compliant http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/ If you look at the summary, you see they mention Novell, Novell=SuSE suse hasn't struck out on its own, its been trying to get everyone to play nice for a while, first with United Linux, and now by backing the LSB 2.0

Re:In other words...

[Shadowhawk]

Minor quibble:
In regards to SuSE, I'd point out the summary includes Novell (SuSE's owner) as already backing the LCC.

Re:In other words...

[burns210]

Could we PLEASE, PLEASE have ubutu, redhat, fedora and gentoo back this up... Even with changes, a unified standard(the LSB, which this is an implementation of) needs to get backed and supported...

The more LSB compliant linux is, the more consistant and usable it becomes as a whole.

PRETTY PLEASE.

Re:In other words...

[HiThere]

The article already SAYS that Red Hat is supporting this effort (though it doesn't say how). It doesn't mention the others, but I assume that if Red Hat is supporting it, that means that Fedora is going to implement it. Gentoo, LFS, ubutu, etc. will do as they see fit.

Personally, the only GOOD thing I've noticed about the new standard is that it's a standard. Presumably this will increase the amount of commercial software written for Linux.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentoo's design principles more or less preclude it from supporting the LSB except through a compatibility interface.

What LSB is

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the LSB Project?

The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.

What Does LSB Stand For?

The acronym LSB stands for Linux Standard Base. A key goal that led to the formation of the LSB project was to try to prevent the divergence of Linux-based systems, thus a name indicating base functionality for Linux. Note that the project prefers the use of the acronym LSB over the spelled-out Linux Standard Base to reduce the misconception that this is a Linux-only standard (see next question).

source: LSB faq

Was that difficult? No.

Re:What LSB is

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they don't have that stupid /opt bullshit, I'll be happy. /opt has always been redundant, stupid, and a waste of my time.

Re:What LSB is

[GreyWolf3000]

I tend to use it over /usr/local.

Problem with installing from source to /usr/local is that, unlike, /opt, a simple rm -rf will have some undesireable consequences when you go to uninstall it.

Re:What LSB is

[joeljkp]

Directory paths are specified by the Filesystem Heirarchy Standard, not the LSB.

Supported by Novell??

[a_karbon_devel_005]

The news brief says "Supported by ... Novell"... so why is SuSE Linux not included in this list?

Re:Supported by Novell??

[joestar]

Because Suse has been purchased by Novell. Didn't you know about that?

Re:Supported by Novell??

[GrenDel Fuego]

Yeah, I think he gets that.

I believe his point is that Novell is listed as a backer of this, but their product (SuSE) is not listed among the linux companies that made the announcement.

On the other hand Redhat is also listed in the same manner, so I don't think it means anything.

Re:Supported by Novell??

[Donny Smith]

Both RH and SuSE support LSB, but I don't see them supporting other goals of this "coalition of the willing".

For example, supporting cross-distribution binaries (DEB or RPM) would ruin the investment in Oracle certification and such stuff, so I don't see RH and SuSE rushing in anytime soon..

Re:Supported by Novell??

[GrenDel Fuego]

Not necessarily.

My understanding is that Oracle only supports installations on certified platforms. If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?

Re:Supported by Novell??

[Donny Smith]

>If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?

That's true right now but if all the distros start standardize and support same binaries, I think Oracle won't be able to say "Oh, we only certified RHEL and SLES". If for example they support SLES and SLES is binary-compatible with Mandrake Linux, then one should be capable of installing and running Oracle 10g on Mandrake Linux in the same way it's done on SLES.

Right now Oracle charges a lot for certification, but then in return distros make money since there are only two vendors (RH and Novell) and as you said people generally don't try to fool around trying to save 500 bucks, but once SuSE achieves binary compatibility with other distros via LSB, Oracle's certification system will collapse.
That's my guess, anyway.
And by the way, as an illustration of how bad it is - if you run Oracle on Red Hat with EMC PowerPath, Oracle will support you only if you can duplicate the bug without PowerPath. Now imagine disabling PowerPath on production SAN and production database just in order to try to duplicate a bug without it! Unbelievable. As everyone's environment has something that's not supported, I wonder how much value is there in running any particular distro as long as one has a non-supported (by Oracle) environment.

Re:Supported by Novell??

[Anonymous Coward]

If for example they support SLES and SLES is binary-compatible with Mandrake Linux, then one should be capable of installing and running Oracle 10g on Mandrake Linux in the same way it's done on SLES.

Well it doesn't. The 10g installer will specifically check the distro and version it's running on and will refuse to run if it isn't Redhat ALS, ELS or SuSE.

It is possible to get Oracle installed on a non-supported platform E.g. Fedora (We've done it on FC 2 three times in the last two weeks now) but you have to fiddle quite a bit and basically trick the installer into believing it's running on a supported platform.

Re:Supported by Novell??

[PizzaFace]

Suse Linux 9.2 is already certified to comply with LSB 2.0. These other guys are just announcing their intent to catch up.

In related news.....

[leereyno]

Today Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux announced today that they had reached a consensus and have declared that Linux is indeed an operating system.

In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

Re:In related news.....

[fimbulvetr]

They needed a super computer to compute 42. It'll be a long wait until we find out how 2 is connected to it.

Re:In related news.....

[cybergrue]

In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

2*2*2*2*2+2*2*2+2

OK, that's enough silliness for today.

Re:In related news.....

[Anonymous Coward]

>In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

2 follows 1

If you double each value, you get:

4 and 2

It's a simple matter of putting the numbers next to each other, you then get:

42

Easy enough.

Re:In related news.....

[nine-times]

Today Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux announced today that they had reached a consensus and have declared that Linux is indeed an operating system.

Oh, but they're wrong. Linux is just the kernel.

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in piec

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig: I just talked to a guy yesterday who was looking to fill an 80 month project manager position in wisc.
Are jobs that scarce in wisc?

Linux problem is....

[Himring]

The problem with Linux has always been too many cooks doing their own thing. It confuses the heck out of PHBs. Any move -- ANY -- toward standarization is only going to assist in its growth....

Re:Linux problem is....

[leereyno]

Lets be honest, the menu at McDonalds confuses PHBs. Shoelaces are worrysome to them. Learning to use toilet paper was a great achievement in their life. The reason why PHBs have their jobs is because incompetent and semi-competent boobs outnumber the competent by at least 4 to 1. The world is ruled, or at least dominated, as "ruled" implies planned and organized effort, by the clueless.

Re:Linux problem is....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem with Linux is all the arm-chair analysts who can proclaim what the problem with Linux is. Now, if you want to talk about the problems with PHB's (which is all I could really see in your comment), that could cover volumes.

Re:Linux problem is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Learning to use toilet paper was a great achievement in their life.

The real entertainment will be waiting for them to figure out the three seashells.

Re:Linux problem is....

[ArsonSmith]

Stupid managers, It's easy to lead when you only have to think you know where your going. For the rest we are smart enough to know that we don't know where were going so we don't even try. Any time I am put in a manger position I hate it. It's like having a blind person tell a deaf person the wrong way go, then the deaf person wrongly corrects and relays that information to me with smoke signals, and performance dance (hehe imagine your boss doing that). Then I have to (most likely wrongly) correct that information into something that might make sense. It's like the bucket of shit, and stinks -> promotes growth and is strong transition of that one joke.

mandrake link

[falkryn]

You can also go here:

http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/press/briefs?n =/mandrakesoft/actions/2522

and here:

http://www.mandrakesoft.com/lcc/faq

Isn't that why we have an LSB

[ViceClown]

If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[Blitzenn]

NO, no no. It is for the Lunar Software Brochure. They were arguing over the who's logo goes first.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[a_karbon_devel_005]

They're "updating" the linux standard base specifications.

The problem is that any standards bodies, and I mean most ANY standards bodies, is that they move too quickly to have much impact. We all like to THINK that w3 and other open standards bodies are the "movers and the shakers" but really, it's usually Microsoft or some other corporation like Adobe or Macromedia that come up with the REAL standards. Word, ActiveX, Acrobat, Flash, .NET, etc. These are the "standards" that companies ( and thus the world ) pays attention to.

I think it will take another company like Red Hat to be the driving force behind boosting linux's viability in the coporate (and then home) desktop arena. I'm hoping SuSE/Novell can step up to that challenge.

If LSB people wanted to REALLY make much difference, they would adapt new exciting projects like elektra (http://elektra.sf.net) and not just rehash over all the same material covered in LSB1.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[a_karbon_devel_005]

"..t they move too quickly to have much impact."

Gah! Slowly! I meant SLOWLY!

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[dbacher]

The issue is that LSB needs to evolve over time. The current standard is outdated and hasn't been applied by most vendors in several years.

LSB is absolutely critical to taking on Windows, and needed to be updated. There cannot be dozens of packages that have to be maintained by those of us writing software for Linux. This makes the user experience bad for people who aren't computer science majors and can't work configure, GNU C, etc.

Installing a program from binaries should be the single simplest thing a user ever has to do. It should be simple and consistant across all distributions. An individual distribution may have a "better way of doing it" (dpkg vs rpm, etc.), but the user experience needs to be consistent, and there needs to be a set of features, libraries, etc. that package maintainers can write to to be able to say:
"Click here to install the GNU/Linux LSB 2 package"

Windows has been to this point for a long time. You don't see a lot of programs saying "click here for Windows 95, click here for NT." There are programs that do, just not many. Even in the Windows 3.1 to 95 transition, you saw a lot more programs that used Win32s and just shipped a 95 version than that shipped both versions.

GNU/Linux needs to get there. Diversity is fine, version numbering is confusing across the board. The kernel version is usually stated on the box or on the information on the website. Versions of other pieces aren't commonly reported.

Being able to say "LSB 2.0" and being able to have a LSB 2.0 package that installs on all LSB 2.0 plaftorms is absolutely critical.

From a developer standpoint, the most attractive alternative is to use Java or ECMA .NET (or a similar solution), as these have widespread support over many platforms at this point, and require only a single package and handle versioning relatively well.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[Anonymous Coward]

"..t they move too quickly to have much impact."

Gah! Slowly! I meant SLOWLY!

Yeah, it's easy to get those two confused. I mean difficult.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[bcrowell]

Isn't that THE defacto standard?
A de facto standard would be one that was not officially endorsed, but that everyone actually used. AFAICT, the LSB has always been the opposite: a standard that was officially endorsed, but that nobody actually followed.

The LSB standard says that all applications are supposed to be statically linked, except for a very short list of highly standardized, mature, reliable libraries that can be assumed to be available for shared use. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a single significant distro that actually does this.

Now there may be very good reasons why static linking has never been widely accepted on Linux (I think it's because although it would make things more convenient for the end user, it would be less convenient for the applications programmer), but regardless of its merits, the LSB has really just been ignored.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[mdfst13]

XML is a standard, but it still required someone to create an XHTML to implement it.

Context Free Grammar is a standard, but one needs to write a programming language to make use of it. Just because two programming languages have Context Free Grammars does not mean that code written in one will work in the other.

In the same way, there are multiple ways to implement LSB compliant packages. It is not guaranteed that two LSB compliant packages will be able to interact with each other. Presumably all these LCC packages will work with each other (just like you use RH 7.3 RPMs *or* 8.0 RPMs). Note: I haven't RTFA, so I may be misinterpreting what this LCC is supposed to do.

The Reference Unix

[digitalhermit]

I've been a longtime SunOS/Solaris user. Recently I've been breaking AIX machines. One thing I've noticed recently is that Sun, IBM, and HP are starting to put GNU tools on their distributions. It's now common practice for a Linux compatibility layer or just ports of the regular GNU tools (including window managers, package managers, shells, etc..). This means that you can get the benefits of your underlying OS *and* have a unified and consistent interface. Though Linux may not be an *official* Unix, it is fast becoming the reference Unix.

Re:The Reference Unix

[fimbulvetr]

Is there any wonder?
Think about the things that are broken in the default solaris install:

sed, awk, tar
(and probably hundreds more I can't come up with off the bat)

I mean, you can't get far with those being broken.

Re:The Reference Unix

[jokumuu]

Well Gnu is hardly linux, but I do agree with you on the priciple. The UNIX vendors seem to have noticed the high popularity of the linux and taken steps to try to make their offerings more aluring to the new crop of techies that think that Linux is the way UNIx should be.

The funny part is.. though my first UNIX was Sun-os and I used solaris for a long time, the world of linus now seems so natural that whenever I use Solaris (or AIX) I want the GNU versions of everything.

Re:The Reference Unix

[digitalhermit]

You're right in that many of the tools in Solaris don't work quite as expected. I'm not sure if it's because Sun wanted to keep bug-for-bug compatibility with older versions, or just didn't see the need to update working utilitues, but it's aggravating (and potentially dangerous to data) if the tools don't work consistently across OSes.

Re:The Reference Unix

[Coryoth]

Think about the things that are broken in the default solaris install:

sed, awk, tar

Depending on what you're looking for you (ie. if you like a lot of the GNU convenience features) can include

ls (no, really, no colors, and lacking all manner of other sugary features)
grep (the raw Solaris grep is surprisngly slow compared to GNU grep, not to mentiona lack of options)
diff (go on, try diff --help, again, all the nice options are missing)

and as you say, many many more. That's some pretty basic stuff that, while not "broken", feels broken when you're used to the GNU versions.

Oh, and killall. killall is always fun on Solaris...

Jedidiah.

Re:The Reference Unix

[cortana]

What? It does exactly what it says on the tin... :)

Re:The Reference Unix

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right -- there's a distinction between GNU and Linux, but it's blurry to many people. Even the BSD flavors have a Linux compatibility layer.

But there are Linux specific tools that are becoming part of commercial Unix systems. RPM, love it or hate it, is becoming part of AIX and Solaris. Honestly, though there were lots of legitimate concerns about the robustness of the RPM system when it was first introduced, it has grown to a very powerful, enterprise class tool. Neither the Sun or AIX native tools have the same usability features in one application. About the only thing that an RPM backend lacks is a good backout mechanism, and this can be handled via a frontend utility.

There are also many system scripts that are being transferred because they work so well. These appeared first on Linux then were quickly ported.

Re:The Reference Unix

[fimbulvetr]

LOL, good point.
I still remember my first killall on solaris, having come from a linux environment.

Re:The Reference Unix

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you're the same Linux admin that arrived in my datacenter in 2000, did some work on my E6500, logged out, then turned off the serial terminal. :D

Re:The Reference Unix

[tyrr]

Speaking about killall, Linux adopted pkill from Solaris AFAIR :-)
Not this confusion is gone.

Re:The Reference Unix

[ArsonSmith]

Hmm, what did this do? We have several E6k and E10ks as well as E450s around and I do this all the time with no negitive recourse. often times we turn off the terminals and move them around from system to system. We are only now getting all our Unix boxes onto terminal concentrators which are really nice.

Re:The Reference Unix

[Anonymous Coward]

If you turn off the main console on a Sun box then the system shuts down.

Re:The Reference Unix

[Anonymous Coward]

Disabling the halt is as simple as http://www.burgettsys.com/stories/37815/.

Re:The Reference Unix

[Anonymous Coward]

vi is defective on Solaris, too. Any terminal over 132 characters is "too wide?!?!?" Not for me, it isn't, why should it be too wide for vi!!!!!!!!

This fact, and stupid management, forced me to put together powerpoint slides in which I had to BEG for them to not remove all of the forms of emacs (which were "unsupported" and therefore evil) that they "accidentally" installed with SunOne Studio. Could you imagine no emacs and no (useful) vi? I know, real programmers use "cat >filename" and just don't make mistakes.

Re:The Reference Unix

[stor]

Oh, and killall. killall is always fun on Solaris...

LOL. I remember the first time I ran killall on a Solaris production server.

Oopsie daisy!!!

I really should have read the man page first. Never made that mistake again though ;)

Cheers
Stor

And, is it Little Endian

[wiredog]

Big Endian, or Middle endian? The article doesn't seem to say...

Networking!

[IceFox]

Where is the networking setup standard? Please, please please! Why does every single distro have a different way (sometime only slightly!) of setting up networking? This causes so much pain. From porting script, helping get a friends box working, and getting the latest liveCD working with your laptop. Unlike other aspects of Linux because this is so fragmented even Google might not have the answer for your perticular distro. On top of that most everyday network setup gui tools are ONLY for one distro and you are lucky if it suports more then that one. It is a real problem for linux. Linux has fantastic networking support, but you have to re-learn how to setup your networking every time you go to a new distro. Whats up with that?

-Benjamin Meyer

Re:Networking!

[Donny Smith]

>Whats up with that?

Since most of the packages are same accross all distributions, it's in no big distribution's interest (short-term interest) to be compatible with smaller distributions as that enables user mobility.

So if you're RH you don't want to see some good X program being directly installable on SuSE - if SuSE is slightly cheaper (or god forbid free), why would users of application X stay with RH (all other factors being equal)?

The pressure to standardize Linux to some meaningful extent will come from
a) Smaller distributions (like Debian, Turbolinux, etc.)
b) Software and hardware vendors trying to keep SuSE and RH in check (Oracle, Sun, etc.).

Novell has a range of non-OS software which can make money (like directory server, etc.) whereas RH's portfolio in my view is limited to their OS. Linux standardization will hurt RH the most as it will make distribution type almost irrelevant.
My guess is that RH is there just for the sake of it.
Here's the list of orgs behind LSB.
http://www.freestandards.org/modules.php?nam e=Cont ent2&pa=showpage&pid=7

Long-term, standards will of course increase acceptance of Linux, but by then selling OS support will become commodity.
Look how Sun's stuff got certified recently ("Open Standards") - they'll keep kicking that chair under Red Hat...
http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_pro dlist.tp l?CALLER=cert_prodlist.tpl&_ca_id=&crt=&trt=&S =R2

Re:Networking!

[Dan Ost]

If you can't figure out how your distro handles network start up scripts,
roll your own script using ifconfig and dhcpcd (if you use dhcp).
ifconfig works the same on every distro I've tried.

Nothing to it.

Re:Networking!

[Mad_Rain]

Heh, not to nitpick, but:

The pressure to standardize Linux to some meaningful extent will come from
a) Smaller distributions (like Debian

Debian is small? ;)

I don't think that standardization would necessarily hurt RedHat, but provide them a door in. I'm sure there are some marketing people at RH thinking "Once you get your teeth cut on another standardized distro, and you want to move up to a better supported service for a more serious business (or whatever description gets the Pointy Haired Boss interested), why not move over to Red Hat?"

Then all they have to do is provide a service that can distinguish themselves from other vendors, and they're good. (Of course, that's always the hard part).

Re:Networking!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an industry standard for System Configuration from the DMTF (Distributed Management Task Force http://www.dmtf.org/ called CIM. There are several open source implementations of one of the DMTF technologies called WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management). They are OpenWBEM ( http://www.openwbem.org/ ) and The Open Groups OpenPegasus. We just need the open source community to adopt writing the necessary providers for all the components of the OS.

Re:Networking!

[m50d]

Well, ifconfig is the standard :) Seriously, isn't netconfig available on every distribution? And since servers need network configuration more than desktops do, I can't imagine any gui tool becoming standard. Just learn netconfig, it's actually just as easy as a gui tool, just not quite as pretty looking.

Re:Networking!

[Donny Smith]

>Debian is small? ;)

Didn't mean to offend Debian fans, I actualy like it (that's why I mentioned it). I meant "comparatively smaller" (in comparison with Red Hat).

> (Of course, that's always the hard part).

Sometimes I think it's like being a mouse running on that constantly spinning wheel - the moment you stop you're gone! As you say it's going to be hard(er).

So how come ...

[Anonymous Coward]

they haven't included Caldera along with them ?

No, no, no!

[mrchaotica]

It's United Linux: Reloaded

Get it right or pay the price!

Mirror

[zerblat]

The article is /.ed. Good thing it's also .\ed.

I thought Linus did this

[Blitzenn]

I thought what's his name, Linus Trerribald, or something like that, did the core management? Are they ripping it out of his hands? This move would make the Linux core a commercially drive product now wouldn't it? This doesn't sound like a positive thing to me for open source Linux.

Re:I thought Linus did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the best troll you could possibly come up with? Pathetic.

Re:I thought Linus did this

[Secrity]

Linus does the linux kernel, the distribution folks do the bits that go around the kernel. The distribution folks combine the Linux kernel with various other bits of software, various graphics, and software that the distribution folks writen themselves to build a "distro". Even though all of the linux distros use the linux kernel, the choice of the other software and file system arrangements gives each distribution it's own unique flavor.

Re:I thought Linus did this

[Blitzenn]

Ah! I didn't realize that. Thank you!

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it RIP

[leuk_he]

Who modded this funny. After so much years of /. one would think some way to prevent this would be implemented. Even google caches. . But still the editors don't behave well. They even leave the faq the same about killing servers,

The LSB standard, not the implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell supports the LSB standard, but uses its own implementation.

Agree on LSB?

[lcsjk]

Does this mean we finally have agreement on the location of the LSB? Is it on the left, or on the right?

FYI You can't change the 1's and 0's to dots and commas because it would not be binary anymore.

Huh?

[Skeezix]

How does the announcement that they will work together to insure interoperability mean that RPM is losing popularity? Keep in mind the major vendors are still RPM-based: Red Hat, Novell SUSE, JDS (SUSE based), Mandrake...

Re:Huh?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

How does the announcement that they will work together to insure interoperability mean that RPM is losing popularity?

It doesn't. Anyone who has actually read the LSB already knows that LSB specifies RPM as the official, common, package manager.

I seem to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember LSB1 only standardized some ridiculously basic stuff and didn't really get you any closer to cross-compatibility for applications except in the most minimal of ways. Does LSB2 get any closer?

So basically...

[FluffyPanda]

Every major linux vendor agrees that the Linux Standard Base is the Standard Base upon which to build Linux distros?

*Phew* I'm glad we sorted that out.

Now can we please get everyone to stop adding distro-specific extensions to the linux filesystem? I like to know where my software keeps its bits.

Sort of "yes", but mostly "no".

[khasim]

If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?

Nope. It's just a published attempt at creating a standard. The "de facto standard" is however the majority of Linux boxes are currently configured.

The LSB is a documented standard, but it doesn't specify a complete implementation. That's why two different distributions can be "LSB compliant" yet software designed to run on one will not run on the other.

So, once again a few of the lesser distributions are going to band together to work on an implementation common to them so that software written to the LCC implementation of the LSB will run on any of distributions of the members of the LCC.

Which also explains why Red Hat and Novell/SuSE have not joined. Since they really have nothing to gain from diluting their marketing efforts.

Creativity

[RealProgrammer]

It's not just 'creativity'. There is also:

• Loyalty to The BSD Way or The System V Way, etc.
• Corporate strategy: if we do that, are we helping them or us?
• Different preferences among the developer base of the distro, which may rise to the level of proselitizing.
• Inertia: an object at rest tends to stay, etc. Subcontexts to that are
  • Corporate suits: who's going to pay some developer to make the change, instead of working on something more likely to make money right now?
  • Developers: why bother? (And by the way, what have *you* or *I* done?)
  • Users: The standard what?

Chorus:
"In the old days, we did it this way. We like doing it this way - it's better, and everyone should do it this way. Who are you to tell us to do it your way? Fine, we'll do it that way and then fork off another distro!"

Every time someone comes up with a Grand Plan or other big push to unify Linux, I am surprised by how few people get it. Unity is nice, but FOSS is not the place to find it. Want unity? Learn .NET.

Re:Creativity

[maxwell demon]

Maybe the best way would be to create a binary installation system similar to autoconf for source compilation.

Re:Creativity

[AIM31]

Autopackage

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in piec

[AKAImBatman]

Wisconsin,

<deer-hunter>Love 'dem Packers. Gosh, I'd do anything for da' Packers. Remember Vince Lambardi in the glory days? Well I'm a deer hunter, how do you do, I got this dear hunting, rapping tale for you...</deer-hunter>

where taxes are high,

Only in Dane county.

property expensive,

Only in Dane county. (Although some of the outlying areas are starting to go up in price.)

salaries low,

As well as cost of living.

and few jobs to find.

Is it really that bad? Last time I was looking there, it was in the worst period of the economic downturn. Believe it or not, there were positions available, especially in Medial and Government work. The thing that pissed me off the most was that many of the consulting firms jerked you around and then ignored you until they needed to jerk you around again. (Exacta wasn't bad, though.)

The only thing that pissed me (and thousands of other people) off more than consulting companies, was AmFam. Could they even TRY interviewing a few candidates before they change the project requirements? I swear, they were just trying to keep their HR department busy. (Poor guys. They really were trying to staff the place.)

Gotta love it.

I love Wisconsin, but the Madison work culture is probably the most annoying part. :-)

Expect the next SCO lawsuite ...

[maxwell demon]

... because it's clear that the S in "LSB" was stolen fropm SCO (not to forget that SCO holds some IP on the idea of standardizing Linux, given that it was once member of UnitedLinux ...).

YAD

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Yeah for Yet Another Distro. Let's hype up the fact that Linux is about having a choice and then address the problem of "Linux is about having a choice". This will not make any purchase power wield MIS directors change their minds. They are either comfortable with Linux or not. If you now tell them that it doesn't matter wether you use Novell or RedHat because they are the same, people with Business knowledge will say that both companies are unsafe for long term support because neither understand the significance of PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.

Re:YAD

[FluffyPanda]

Same? No

Compatible? Yes

They'll never be the same, there'll always be a choice, they could be a little less confusing to switch between.

Re:YAD

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Same? No
Compatible? Yes

Right now the big difference is in package installs. Red Hat has RPM and others have whatever they have (I use the already compatible source installs and manuals so I am unfamiliar with those tools) I see those tools as being attractive to new sites and important. I do not see any other valuable point of standardizing. I think the "Linux" part is the same everywhere and the GNU portion should have variety. Every software distro out there got to where it is by solving specific sets of problems for their user base. Standardizing chooses one response for each problem and neglects the other solutions. Choice is dwindled by this approach.

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in piec

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone get the text?

This might work

[bogaboga]

Yes, this time, these efforts might lead to something. Does it mean that we'll have one common binary for an application for example? Or does it mean that administrators will have one certification?

Re:This might work

[2004.3]

LSB is being payed attention to, at least in a summary manner. I noticed that even many of the changes to Gentoo's portage and some file locations were to conform more closely to LSB. This is coming from a non-binary distribution. Perhaps it will be a good thing.

Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now:

The next version of Mandrake will adhere to the new LSB standard and be called Madrake-LSB. This will unfortunately make it incompatrable with pervious Madrake versions, so they will also bring out a non LSB Madrake version (Mandrake-NLSB) for backward compatibility. Unfortantely becuase LSB doesn't address all Linux standards Mandrake LSB will not be compatable any of the other LSB distributions and visa versa. Also, Suse and Redhat, unhappy with the new standard, are working on the Sushat Standard, while Debian unhappy with both LSB and SusHat will bring out a new Debian standard, which only itself will follow, etc. etc.

LSB

[Anonymous Coward]

is Lower SideBand as opposed to USB which is upper sideband (as in SSB-SC (single sideband - suppressed carrier). Just ask any ham radio operator.

I did some of this stuff in the '60s

[MarkEst1973]

I'm still seeing trails.

oh, wait, LSB....

Yes, but ...

[quarkscat]

what is SCOX's position on this new
standard for their code base? It
can't be an acceptable standard until
ALL the major linux players embrace it.

Re:Okay...

[rackhamh]

Wow, I can't believe people wasted mod points to mod this down. Must be Wednesday morning grouchiness... :)

Wrong about RedHat

[c_spencer100]

Didn't you see Redhat's name listed at the bottom ? Redhat, SuSE, and Mandrake were actually the first three to support it. RedHat Linux has been LSB complaint since version 7.3.

Re: How about a 16bit char

[soundman32]

I worked for a short while on a DSP which could only access everything as a 16 bit word.

Caused some confusion when doing 8 bit serial communications I can tell you.

Neil

Yeah, but it's what Linux is all about!

[PornMaster]

blah blah blah GPL blah blah if you don't like something, you can just change it blah blah blah blah we can fork the project blah blah blah the reason I like Linux is choice blah blah blah.

Business likes this, but is there impending backlash from the OSS crowd about not jiving with the hacker ethos?

Try again, thanks for playing

[JSBiff]

Are you smoking crack? Deb won't support LSB? They ALREADY DO. In the 'stable' distro they support LSB 1.1, and 'testing' has LSB 2.0 support, as demonstrated by the link above. Do a little research before you post.

In fact, the Debian developers track the standards almost religiously, and have for a long time. Filesystem Hierarchy Standard and LSB support have been part of Debian for a long time now. That's why I personally use Debian. It is a completely free, relatively easy to use and administer (once you are past the initial learning curve), standards compliant distro with almost every open-source/free package out there already packaged for installation from the Debian distro mirrors.

Re:Try again, thanks for playing

[Pxtl]

How are they working that out? After all, a distaste for RPMs and an adoption of LSB seems to be pretty mutually exclusive.

Re:Try again, thanks for playing

[JSBiff]

They work it out by having RPM installable as a Debian package. apt-get install rpm. Also, they have a program (and this has been part of Debian like forever) called 'alien' that will actually read an RPM file and generate a DEB file from it. Just because Debian is based on dpkg, doens't mean that you can't use rpm to install rpm packages. They just don't actually package the stuff that is *part* of debian as RPMs because they have a better format.

Re:Try again, thanks for playing

[Elbows]

They have a tool called alien which turns RPMS into Debs. It seems to work pretty well, too.

So, software packed for debian (.debs) can't be installed elsewhere (AFAIK), but software packaged for LSB (rpms) can be installed on debian.

Re:Try again, thanks for playing

[swv3752]

Yes they can. Alien can convert *.deb to other formats.

Re:Try again, thanks for playing

[Judebert]

Ummm... in the Debian package lsb, this disclaimer exists (from your own link):

The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is LSB-compliant.

So they support LSB, but they specifically say they're not LSB-compliant. Too bad. I was already feeling superior with my sid installation.

Re:Try again, thanks for playing

[Deliveranc3]

Since redhat died Debian is getting to "mainstream" for slashdot users. Expect tonnes of Debian bashing.

I ran Redhat for a month now I run debian and it's EASY.

Therefore clearly debian must die... New users, shudder.

What's with the filtered vision?!

[haggar]

It also says "Supported by... RedHat". RedHat, as far as I know, is the #1 in Linux marketshare and is certainly more readily associated with Linux than Novell!

You are confused

[mcc]

The LSB requires RPM be available. I.E. it requires that the distro be able to elegantly deal with and properly install a package presented to it in RPM format. It doesn't say anything about what the distribution's primary package manager is.

Integrating optional RPM support into your distro's native package manager is not hard.

Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, will it ever be?

Re:Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, will it ever be?

Yes, just as soon as it's finished compiling.

Re:Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[m50d]

It can be, depending entirely on your setup. Obviously there's no way you can declare gentoo to be compliant, because someone could set up their system to have man pages be installed in /opt/foobar and that would break things. But if you do things normally, and emerge rpm, lots of gentoo systems are LSB-compliant.

Re:Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[sageman]

Of course, that would mean having to use solely rpms's with your gentoo system, which seems hard to do. I guess you could emerge as a package, creating a binary, maybe then making it an rpm, and have everything as optimized, home-compiled rpm's. However, then you have a "LSB compliant" (in the sense of package management) system that uses packages which will only run on your system (okay, and systems with similar configurations and USE flags, etcetera). My pals and I set up a similar system with one server making the package and then the other four (The Collective) fetching that package, which has already been all set up for their system (they are identical systems). I guess, we could have made the packages it used rpm's, though don't see the reason. Personally, though, I don't use rpm's unless I need to, since compiling from source allows much more customization, like being able to just get Konqueror from the KDE packages without any other apps from it, or specifying the apropos USE flags to make sure I have, say, python support for apache, but no perl or php (if one wanted to). Sure you can do this with other systems, but the interface to doing it, and the fact that you can fully customize it all, is really powerful and hella fun!

Re:Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[j_sp_r]

emerge lsb2

Re:Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[gothmog666]

emilio@sala ~ $ emerge -s lsb
Searching...
[ Results for search key : lsb ]
[ Applications found : 0 ]

Re:Is Gentoo LSB 2.0 compliant?

[m50d]

As has been made clear elsewhere, no it wouldn't. It just means you have to be able to install LSB-compliant rpms - i.e. you need rpm installed and you have to persuade it that you have a few core system libraries installed, which although slightly tricky without making a fake rpm, is not impossible.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a simple solution .
Just use links everywhere

;-)

Good point

[Anonymous Coward]

Hadn't thought of that aspect, but yeah, modding it up increases the ability of people to correct it.

XML

[oliverthered]

Why the hell can't they use xml and write xsd's.
Then your problems would be over, or at least a small xslt.

mod parent troll

[eobanb]

Seriously, spelling it "Linus Trerribald" is just asking for it. I looked at this guy's past comments; quite helpful...

Re:mod parent troll

[Blitzenn]

I am really sorry that I did not take the extra time, from work no less, to look up the correct spelling of the man's name. No disrespect was meant. I simply tried to spell it in a way that others would understand whom I was talking about.

You on the other hand have demonstrated that you have every intention of displaying disrespect, hatred and disgust for everything that isn't the way you want it. Get a life! The world IS NOT going to change for you. Learn how to live with others and their failings, or the hatred is going to eat you alive. Patience, fostering and care is going to turn a lot more heads and change more minds than cursing someone out for a simple mispelling of a name. I thought that I made it pretty obvious that I didn't know how to spell it when I wrote that I didn't know how. Lose the atitude dude. You are the troll here. Can't someone ask a question or is this club members only?

(null)

[cyko500]

I've noticed some people don't seem to like the standardization effort, stating that it brings about less choice and product differentiation. "Linux is about choice" and whatnot.

How the fuck does being able to download and install a program on any linux distro give you less choice?

Linux NEEDS a standard way to install programs. This is a major barrier to getting the average user to use linux.

In windows, you download an installer, double click, a screen pops up, you follow instructions. Linux needs this ease of installation.

There are a lot of great open source apps that have come out for linux that are easily as good or better than closed source software for linux, but if people have no clue how to install and uninstall things they just WON'T use linux.

Linux, right now, can only be manipulated by hardcore geeks. Sure someone who is spoonfed linux can run apps by themselves, but they won't be able to do anything else and will rely on their geek relation to install new things or fix problems.

If users can easily install and uninstall programs from whatever distro, they are free to "play" more with linux. They can test out what programs they like and then use the damn stuff.

If users can't figure out how to install some damn software they will get frustrated, and yell "FUCK OFF, DAMN YOU!!!1!!one" really loud at their monitor and proceed to use windows.

Granted, most people don't want to play with programs. However, the easy of installation will attract a new group of people to linux. It'll attract those how know about computers, like to tinker, but don't code for a living. Those people will, in turn, attract the teeming mass of zombies.

So yeah I guess I could sum it up with:
standard installer = good
standard installer != lack of choices

Anyhow, the "ubersuperior" geeks can have fun flaming me (and my typos, I don't check these posts for typos....).

Re:(null)

[fusey_2004]

Standardising on file placement, etc. for installation is a good idea, but I see the benefit as mainly being for the distro developers themselves, not the users. Similarly, most of the program demands are largely common sense i.e. what most existing users expect anyway.

I may be missing something here but:

-- Installation on Windows
-- I have to find the website and download the program or buy it on a CD or whatever
-- I then have to work out how to turn what I have in to something I can install. It may sound easy from someone like yourself, who seems to find installing on Windows easy, but there are plenty of people for which this is not the case. You still have to specify file paths and such, so there is no standard location here, either. It may be installed in 'Program Files' or whatever by default, but the user could kick it into C:/foobar.
-- When it comes to upgrading, in most cases, this rigmarole has to start all over again. I also have to work out when updates are available, and get the new versions myself (or in most cases, buy them).

-- On my Debian GNU/Linux system

- If I want a program, I can just load up Synaptic, and pick what I want from a list. This is categorized with descriptions, so I can look in, say, Games for something to play.
- Synaptic will check for upgrades and apply them FOR ALL THE SOFTWARE IT MANAGES (which is basically, everything on my system)

When I choose something, the latest version is automatically downloaded and installed. It seems you're looking at this less from a simplistic user's point of view, than as from an entrenched Windows user's point of view. I don't see how the Windows way is easier in any way. IMO, it's much more hassle and inconvienance.

The whole point of GNU/Linux having distributions is the provision of such tools. In my experience, there is no equivalent on a Windows system of something that manages things in this way. Things are different on a per-app basis, even if there is nowadays more standardisation in installers (which there hasn't been until recently, except by chance use of the same creation software -- needed because they are so overly complex).

I'm no uber-geek. I'm just someone who wants to use my computer to get my work done, without getting bogged down in admin. tasks. My GNU/Linux system allows me to do this much more easily than Windows ever did.

Re:(null)

[menace3society]

Linux NEEDS a standard way to install programs.

It's called source.

The real meaning of LSB

[jd]

Nonono, LSB is a binary form of LSD when seen through an LCD, after reading FUD on why Linux isn't being adopted. It causes your computer to hallucinate Pluto whilst running SETI@Home.

Yippee!!!

[advocate_one]

does this mean everybody is going to finally agree on where to install major packages like Gnome and KDE??? and that as a consequence, packages compiled on one distro such as mandrake for KDE will install on another distro such as Suse with the same "major" version of KDE? I'm tired of finding binary packages on websites compiled for say mandrake and there being no Suse version also.

Re:Jobs

[justsomebody]

No, that would be Al Gore. He would probably say that inventing LSB was next project after he inventing internet

problem.. linux.. heterogenous

[Stunning Tard]

Well it (too many cooks...) might not be THE problem with Linux but it's mine. If LSB will allow me to:

1. Download
2. Click to install
3. Enjoy!

I'll be there. I'll pick an LSB distro and I'll hunt for LSB certified packages. It's the 'free' part of Linux that appeals most to me. I don't have the money to waste on XP but I don't have time to learn how to recompile a kernel. So maybe Linux isn't for me.
I've been evaluating linux for a while and the learning has been very slow. Sometimes my hand gets sore from punching my monitor. Dispite picking what I thought would be the Linux for dummies (Redhat).

Re:problem.. linux.. heterogenous

[Mornelithe]

How is your list of options different from, say:

1. Find what you want in a list of packages
2. Click to install
3. Enjoy!

Debian/Ubuntu with a front end for the package manager can pretty much do that (as can many other systems, I'm sure). If you're willing to go slogging through tons of web pages looking for LSB certified packages, then it should be no problem to slog through a list of possible packages to install. And Debian's sources will have every package you could reasonably want. If you don't find it in apt, you probably won't find an LSB certified package (because it will be some small-time/new stuff that you'll have to build from source).

You shouldn't have to recompile your kernel unless you have really weird hardware. Vendor kernels packaged with the system should work for any remotely normal machine (barring the currently poorly-supported due to uncooperative hardware vendors crop of wireless cards).

Re:problem.. linux.. heterogenous

[m50d]

Redhat is definitely not the distro for dummies. Try Mandrake or Xandros. Mandrake's gui installer tool isn't the nicest around but it does work, so if you click a link to a truly lsb-compliant rpm, you'll get an ugly but friendly program opening it, with one click to install it.

I thought...

[Bohemoth2]

this already happened

Voltron for Dummies

[kale77in]

Voltron, for those who missed it:

1. The evil witch Hagar creates a new "ro-beast" (tm).
2. Minor cute plot devices use up about 18 minutes of time in the script.
3. They get in their five robot lions and go out to fight the ro-beast.
4. The ro-beast slaps the lions around for a few minutes.
5. They think, "Hey, we could UNITE TO FORM VOLTRON, DEFENDER OF THE UNIVERSE, YES I SAID THE WHOLE UNIVERSE EVEN THE BITS THAT APPEAR VERY FAR AWAY!"
6. The robot lions join together into a big humanoid robot, who destroys the ro-beast more-or-less instantly.
7. Repeat indefinitely every afternoon after school.

G-Force was cool too.

Re:Voltron for Dummies

[edp927]

you forgot a few steps:
6b. Just as things are looking good for our heros, the ro-beast stransforms or reveals some huge new weapon, which promises to destroy Voltron forever.
6c. FORM BLAZING SWORD

gotta have the blazing sword.

Re:Voltron for Dummies

[yecrom2]

I never understood why Voltron didn't just stay together and carry the blazing sword around all the time. There's probably some comittee somewhere that determines when the different steps are possible.

"Don't form the blazing sword yet, The ro-beast might get mad if we defend ourselves too successfully"

"#*%$ you, McNamara! Time for a Blazing Sword Enema (c)."

Re:Voltron for Dummies

[turgid]

Yes, but do they save Earth from the "Bendars"?

/me ducks.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Spy der Mann]

As Insightful. Would teach a lot to those uber-geeks who expect everyone to match their IQ.

The greatest thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

about a Linux Standard Base, is that people don't even have to use it. Yes, even though there is a standard, there would still be room for companies/individuals to improve, change, or just plain disregard it. Three cheers for Open Source Software!

high speed or full speed?

[Henk Postma]

do you mean LSB high speed or LSB full speed?

:)

LSD

[Anonymous Coward]

If there ever is a single unified set of libs then one could call it a Linux Standard Distroset. Users would need to use LSD to make it run. What a concept.

Re:Jobs

[angulion]

Darl McBride invented LSD, or so it seems.

Novell & Red Hat, back the effort, but don't

[walterbyrd]

participate?

I'm not sure that makes sense.

commonality

[torrents]

more common parts = more common exploits

There is a standard way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh linux does have a standard way to install programs:

./configure
make
make install

If someone is incapable typing these three measly lines on a command prompt then they shouldn't even be using linux in the first place.

Endianness affects bits, too....

[hta]

it came as a great surprise to me that in the neat drawings of IP headers (bits numbered marching across the page from 15 down to 0), the actual sequence of bits transferred across an Ethernet was 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (bits counted off right-to-left, bytes counted off left-to-right).... and that for some dialects of Token Ring, it was the other way around.....

What's obvious.... is not always so.

Thank God

[LANjackal]

As someone who works with Linux, Solaris, Win 2000/XP and Mac OS computers, I can testify that while Linux is a joy to do run intensive calculations on, the user experience simply blows. If these companies can work that out, it would be great.

Why...

[n0tt00elite]

...is it that some Linux users are so afraid of things like this? I love Linux for the freedom it gives me, not the headaches, or the three hour searches on Linux-Google trying to find the instructions specific to my this or my that. It SUCKS! Granted, I don't think we need every distro to be the same. Some should have certain apps and such that others don't, etc... but I would like to be able to download a binary package to install a program and not have to worry about finding exactly the right one. (And compiling from source isn't such a bad thing, either, kind of fun actually). So, alot of freedom is good; a little compliance is good, too.

rpm vs. deb as an aside.

[Nijika]

I'm an avid Debian user, so when I come across a package that is in RPM format or something else, I use Alien.

The problem I've run into, and it isn't a big one, and I'm not sure after reading everything how the LSB would deal with this, is that most RPM packages install start up scripts that rely on RedHat specific shell includes and functions to do the start up sequence.

Other than that it's peachy.