Why Aren't More Distros Becoming LSB Certified?

mydoghasworms asks: "I have done much thinking lately about Linux Standards Base. The idea makes lots of sense: Adopt a standard which will ensure that if some piece of software is compiled on one LSB-compliant system, it will run on any other LSB-compliant system. This would be great for members of the general public who are looking for an alternative to Windows, don't want to pay for Mac, but are looking for a platform where installing and running software is as easy as on the platform they are used to. Seen in that light, if LSB lives up to its promise, it could be the step in Linux's evolution that could see it adopted by the general public. That leaves the question: Why is LSB not seeing greater adoption?" "Is it because it is not marketed well enough? Is the certification process too difficult? Are there perhaps technical challenges to LSB certification not often discussed? If people agree that LSB is in fact what Linux needs right now to ensure widespread adoption, what should be done to create awareness of LSB? Should communities developing Open Source/Free Software projects be encouraged to provide LSB binaries? Your input would be most welcome here."

Comments

Cost

[gordon_schumway]

In case anyone else is curious, from this 2002 article:

The cost for LSB certification testing is $3,000 for a Linux distribution. Certification testing for applications is only $1,200. The Open Group conducts the certification testing.

I didn't find this info on the Open Group's website...

That's not what LSB does

[p3d0]

Adopt a standard which will ensure that if some piece of software is compiled on one LSB-compliant system, it will run on any other LSB-compliant system.

No, that's not what LSB does at all. Even overlooking the obvious architectural differences between, say, PowerPC and Pentium LSB-compliant systems, you still have the various extensions that individual distros add. (Otherwise, why do we need different distros?) If you use one of those distro-specific features, then your code won't run on another LSB-compliant system.

Re:What role does LSB play?

[mooingyak]

It helps that if you use distro A, and I use distro B, and I write some software on my distro, we already know that it'll work on yours if they're both certified.

Re:Linux needs a standard container

[Wylfing]

Heck, its a pain in the ass sometimes to get simple brain-dead stuff such as printing and mounting a drive working.

For some reason I always get modded down for saying this, but I'll say it anyway. I can't ever figure this opinion out. I have problems almost daily in Windows XP trying to print to a network printer (it randomly decides I don't have permission to print), but I never have a problem with this in Linux. I've also never had a problem mounting a drive. For example, I can plug my new Seagate external HD into the firewire port and an icon for the disk appears on my desktop. Where is this mythical "pain in the ass"?

the new CEO (and me too), were sick and tired of people trying to get things to work together properly.

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of FUD about how things "don't work right" in Linux and vague statements about it being "incomplete" when there is no basis for these claims in reality.

Re:Linux needs a standard container

[override11]

We use the LTSP project with about 45 users network booting to a XFCE desktop right now. They browse the web, access our exchange 5.5 server using Thunderbird and have a LDAP directory with auto-name completion as they type email addresses. They access our 5250 iSeries system, and use OpenOffice for word / excel needs on a Windows NT shared drive. We love it, works great. Some more 'advanced' end users chafe some because they cant download their own screen savers or games, but frankly we LOVE that part of LTSP!

LSB isn't the answer

[sofar]

DISLCAIMER: IAADM (I Am A Distro Maintainer)

put simply, LSB doesn't solve the desktop problem. It wasn't meant for that.

The LSB was written to make sure that all those booming distros back in the days they were booming, were somehow unified by a comming file system structure, library setups etc.

They really only mean to cover the (B)ase. This base was since then widely adopted and almost any distro conforms to this (B)ase more than 95%. Only outliers like slackware diverge, and often only minimally.

This puts the burden on distro maintainers to get a certification on something that is completely obvious, and non-beneficial. It's like getting a prep school diploma when you're in high scool already.

Also, the LSB is needlessly strict on some rules that hinder progress (init handling - chkconfig etc), where we should have moved to completely new solutions already (I loved that Makefile approach).

so, expect more from freedesktop.org than from LSB...

Re:Reality check... Bounced.

[Vaevictis666]

As long as the software lists the libraries it is expecting to find and it looks for them someplace reasonably standard, you should be fine

That's what LSB wants to do - codify the "resonably standard" locations for things into the "LSB standard" locations. Then you can be sure you're looking in the correct place for things, rather than having to have your make procedure guess at it.

Re:What role does LSB play?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Hell, makefiles generally take care of that.

Re:Reality check... Bounced.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

apt-cache search grass
gpx2shp - convert GPS or GPX file to ESRI Shape file
grass - Geographic Resources Analysis Support System
grass-doc - Geographic Resources Analysis Support System documentation
libgrass - GRASS GIS development libraries
libgrass-dev - GRASS GIS library development files

Re:Linux needs a standard container

[Hast]

You have no idea what you're talking about, right?

Points 1 and 3: Linux distros typically put settings in /etc. That's your "registry", only human readable and you can back it up and restore (relatively) effortlessly or move to another computer.

Points 2, 4 and 8: Any modern Linux distro has a package handling system. You don't use the tar.gz files yourself, or even at all. These keep track of all software on your system and keeps it all up-to-date.

Points 5, 6 and 7: That's the work of the desktop app.

Finally: No-one NEEDS to do anything to get Linux out to everyone. OSS is not a product it's a process; you can join now or in a year or never. If you want to change what is happening then involve yourself in the process of making it happen.

Gee, I dunno

[OverflowingBitBucket]

One gem from the LSB:

Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB conforming (for example, calls LSB commands and utilities). [2]

[2]

Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes systems easier to manage. A future version of the LSB may require RPM, or specify a way for an installer to update a package database.

Which is basically use RPM, or you might be forced to use it in the future to remain in compliance.

There really shouldn't be a requirement to use a particular package management system in the spec, unless there happens to be a quality, proven, popular system to choose from. Unfortunately, there isn't, and rpm really doesn't fit the bill. I'm not going to get into a debate over the shortcomings of rpm (suffice to say that I packaged software using it and hated it with a passion) as my feelings on it aren't important to the point. My point is there are valid reasons why multiple distros are trying their own package management solutions rather than settling on rpm. Forcing a particular solution arbitrarily (and the selection of rpm is arbitrary) is not going to encourage adoption of a standard.

Add to this a number of other valid concerns from a whole bunch of people (flick through the replies above for a ton of examples) and you may start to find reasons why LSB hasn't been more warmly received.

Except that it is only the Majors that bother

[swv3752]

Go check for yourself.

Most of registered ones are RH and Novell/SUSE, with a few others like Mandrake, SGI and Sun JDS.

See it is just the reverse of your hypothesis. It is only the commercial interests that are interested. That and you need to support the Red Hat way of file system and init and RPM.

The minors only get to play if they pony up some bucks (negligible for a Corp but significant for a non-profit volunteer org) and change things so they are done the RH way. It involves significant changes for any non-RPM based distro to get certified.