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?

[RandoX]

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

Re:LSB?

[Eowaennor]

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

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?

[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. ;-)

This is good news

[gowen]

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

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.

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?

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

[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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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??

[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.

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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

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!

[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).

No, no, no!

[mrchaotica]

It's United Linux: Reloaded

Get it right or pay the price!

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...

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.

I did some of this stuff in the '60s

[MarkEst1973]

I'm still seeing trails.

oh, wait, LSB....

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

[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: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

[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

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a simple solution .
Just use links everywhere

;-)

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

(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....).

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.

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.