Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation

Posted by timothy on from the choosing-lunch-is-much-more-difficult dept.

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."

8 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Re:LSB? by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

  2. Linux problem is.... by Himring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  3. Networking! by IceFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
  4. Huh? by Skeezix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Celebrate the finer things in life
  5. Re:YAD by FluffyPanda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:LSB? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  7. Re:LSB? by Ithika · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    the layman's guide to computer science
  8. (null) by cyko500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....).