Slashdot Mirror
Linux Standard Effort Edges Ahead
ErikPeterson writes "The Free Standards Group has released its third version of the Linux Standard Base, an effort to unify some of the workings of the open-source operating system.
The LSB is designed to make it easier for those producing higher-level software to support different versions of Linux. Pledges to conform to the requirements of Version 3 are Red Hat, Novell's Suse Linux, Asianux and Debian."
Pledges to conform to the requirements of Version 3 are Red Hat, Novell's Suse Linux, Asianux and Debian.
Four down, only 458 to go.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
This was posted just 2 days ago. Isn't exactly a dupe, but was really necessary to post this news about LSB? It is implicit that LSB 3.0 was released in that one.
A standard is a standard when everyone is using it. Just calling it one doesn't make it so.
I used to think Linux was cool -- then I turned 14.
What the LSB should, imo, do is make autopackage the format of choice for installing applications and then have the default package manager (such as rpms and debs and stuff) to download the dependent libs and keep the base system up-to-date. That way, everyone's happy. The newbies get their easy program installers and the seasoned veterans get their apt. But, alas, it's apparently not to be.
... apart from Ingo
Why doesn't he blurb link to the LSB website at all? it's here Anyway's.
Whats the timing issue mentioned in TFA?
Wow. I'm very happy. LSB might actually make Linux useful for those of us trying to make a living off of software development...
The article gets funnier when you read LSB as Least Significant Bit.
Here are the LSB 3.0 Release notes. I'd appreciate it if somebody explained if there is a significant or revolution or something. Thank you.
Are these four distribution releasing this as a standard or only these four have agreed to follow it?
Because in former case, it will never be standard in the first place. And in the latter, well, how are we going to ensure it is followed by others too?
I forgot to be anonymous.
This sort of thing is a necessity. With the variety of Distros and each having its own idea of where things should be, it leads to a lot of unecessary confusion. Regardless of whether the confusion is legitimate or slightly hyped by bullet points in paid research docs, it exists.
I'm impressed that Red Hat has signed on.
Along with 2 other of the more established distros being onboard this standard has a chance.
I mean, do software developers usually keep to this standard, or is it more like them cutting some slack due to numerous distros not adhering to it?
What if those releasing the libs/support files (QT/GTK2, etc.) _only_ allowed you to use them for free, _IF_ the end product adhered to LSB specs.? --It'd force developers to be less sloppy, and some form of unity might come sooner than expected..
Yes, an arrogant idea, but just read it as an "what-if" -kind of thing.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
I know the debian port for AMD64 decided to make the 64bit arch a first class citizen. i.e. there is a /lib directory. Fedora OTOH uses a /lib64 directory. This is like saying there is something special about 64bit libraries on a 64bit arch. Does the new LSB specify how this should be handled? Who will have to change, debian or Red Hat? I run Fedora and am disappointed to have a /lib64 full of stuff and /lib that is almost empty. Thoughts on this?
This can't be the real TMM. There's only one line of unnecessary whitespace.
...and the post was actually pretty funny and it didn't include that f**king anime smile!
To GP: Who are you and what have you done with the real TMM?!
Since many distros is based on RedHat and Debian they too will inherit the base system and be very similar to LSB of not entierly.
HTTP/1.1 400
It would be nice if Ubuntu committed to it seeing as though they've become the 10,000 pound gorilla of Linux distributions.
Note: this isn't anti-Ubuntu. I run Ubuntu.
I don't see how a standard that uses RPM as the mandatory package format will ever gain enough consensus to be successful.
What kind of a standard is this anyway? For example:
Applications are also encouraged to uninstall cleanly.
Um, that's great. Where's the definition of "cleanly"? Where's the rationale? Where's the implementation notes? This thing reads like a few people got together and jotted down a few notes on what they'd like to see. This ain't a specification. Sure, they go into great detail about the format of the RPM file - but that's already an established format that they don't need to explain.
3.4.x still marked as an unstable ebuild last time I checked.
Now, THIS move by the "Penguin People"? A smart one...
Why, imo?
WELL, it will hopefully STOP the "fragmentation @ binaries levels" that UNIX (the predecessor, inferior currently imo to Linux in many ways) encountered!
(Which is, imo, the ONLY real reason we are not all running some form of UNIX on our PC's today instead of Windows, Mac, or Linux as OS' etc./et all).
Kudos on such things happening to the "Penguin crowd", because it's needed imo. Linux 2.6x core is IMPRESSIVE (most impressive) & KDE rocks too imo.
Would be a shame to see that fall apart between Linux versions!
APK
P.S.=> Next, is standards as much as possible between Linux & Win32 (if not MacOS X) so they interoperate on MANY levels (document formats, webpage standards, heck even binary level compatibility which tools like Delphi/Kylix, C/C++, & mostly imo, RealBasic 2005) will be of GREAT aid/help in doing...
E.G.-> Imagine writing code ONCE, & running that same sourcecode as an executable anywhere!
(AND, not using interpretation layers like the Java runtimes, VB runtimes, MSVC++ runtimes as intermediaries which to be blunt about it, slow things down in message-passing overheads & translations on Win32 alone)!
Speed & binary compatibility IS possible, if everyone acts together on it imo... this is the future, & what ought to be the "thinking behind 21st century personal computing"... apk
... but they can stifle innovation. I heard somewhere that KDE had problems with freedesktop.org, cos they wanted to do some fairly sensible things - but it wasn't in the standard... Maybe someone else can fill in details...
And, I might mention, I think it matters A Lot.
s p
/ 1128201
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1861272,00.a
From where I sit, Red Hat's Drepper
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/19
wants to throw the baby of open standardization out with the bathwater of LSB standardization testing, which could still stand a lot of improvement.
With open standardization, Linux could go the way of Intel Unix--shudder!
Steven
How about unification? ONE linux distro to rule them all! Then Bill Gates will have to find a volcanoe to toss it into if he ever hopes Windows to compete against Linux again.
As long as there are 20+ different distributions of Linux and multiple agencies claiming they are defining Linux standards, Linux will never compete outright against Windows.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paragraph
Seems ironic that a 'open standards' site would not be W3C compliant.
http://www.linuxbase.org/
Let's see.. 1 error, 26 warnings! woo-
For those of us not in the latin, scientific, legal, or political professions, here's the descriptions.
De facto: is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice".
De jure: is a Latin expression that means "based on law".
After migrating from Slackware -> Caldera -> SuSE, I am now a happy Ubuntu user.
Really, except for a few developer tools, just about everything that I need is in the main distribution, and can be trivially installed.
I actually have a small point here: for developers and experienced Linux users, running
For novice users, a good distribution like Ubuntu or SuSE is likely to have what people need with OOo, Firefox, a few games, etc.
Except for IntelliJ, it is difficult for me to imagine what other commercial software I would every want for Linux. I do buy programs for OS X and Windows, but I usually use Linux for getting work done, and for me not much is required except for development tools and a word processor. It would be interesting to hear from someone at JetBrains about how much effort it is packaging IntelliJ for various Linux distros.
** Healthier coding: http://cjskitchen.com/
but if you have a decent representation of the more popular distros adopting it, then it becomes a defacto standard for those people. Just in the DCCA you have a decent representation, now add in redhat and suse? You are starting to hit the bulk of what people are running. The various other hundreds of distros have relatively smaller numbers of full time adherents.
I think the LSB is a good idea and should be followed more.
What most people mean, though is the French "d' jour" meaning "of the day". for example, "This is my random act of snarkiness d' jour."
Besides, I like the Gentoo standard better.
I tried using LSB gcc to compile our applications and the 3.0.3-1 packages could not handle C++ code yet. I would get weird header errors on anything that included iostream. This seemed bizarre to me. Has anyone else actually tried using it? I'd be all for it if it actually worked...
Linux united and on the desktop?
Why?
Why should I, a basic user with a home network, 2 children, 4 systems switch to Linux?
I have just upgraded 2 of the 4 systems with Dell 2400 systems which are nice systems for $299.99, include a printer, Windows XP and basic necessities and as soon as you uninstall Symantec Internet Security and replace with antivir/spybot/sygate, all FREE, becomes quite a very nice system.
So now tell me why I should move to Linux?
Openoffice?
I can get that FREE for Windows.
Thanks but no thanks, and evidently I am not alone because let's face it, MSOffice cost a lot of money and one would think a free alternative would be extremely popular. The problem is Openoffice is NOT AN ALTERNATIVE. It is a wannabe that is slow, bloated (even more than MSOffice) and riddled with bugs and that is why it has not put MSOffice on the back burner.
Gimp?
I can get that FREE for Windows.
Thanks but no thanks because Adobe Photoshop that came with my scanner is much better due to an interface that is easy to use.
How about using my digital camera, a Polaroid.
Sure it is recognized by Linux, AS A STORAGE DEVICE, which means everything I want to do takes 4 different programs and 10 steps rather
than one simple "plug it in" which is all I do with Windows. My photo editor opens, my albums are right there, I can easily download and erase photos from the camera and so forth and it syncs perfectly.
Speaking of syncing, how does one sync my Motorola E815 phone with Outlook, Bitpim and other tools that allow mp3/video/pda/graphics uploads and downloads with Linux?
Can't be done.
Can't be done with LG phones either.
What about CD burning?
I work for a company that does video presentations and we must send out demos and one offs to our clients. We use Plextor drives because they include Plextools which allows us to graphically query the drives to see error counts, media problems and so forth BEFORE they end up un our clients hands.
Sorry, but this does not work with Linux.
Linux is a mess.
It's great if you like figuring things out and marching backwards when everyone else is going forwards. It's great if you enjoy trying to unite fifty different projects all lead by egomaniacs who refuse to sacrifice any glory or control for the sake of everyone else.
So Sorry.
No Linux for me, and it appears I am in the majority.
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
I agree that it should be the applications which have to conform, not the distros.
For starters, applications should not assume a certain directory layout, and should just install to the appropriate places based on the distro. Yes, this means that package managers might need to be slightly smarter than they currently are. But existing source-based installation already works for the majority of packages.
Case in point: GoboLinux. Now, those guys have introduced a more intuitive filesystem hierarchy that actually works and makes sense at the same time (which is rare.) However, Linux Standard Base, which depends on the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, outright prohibits their directory layout.
So... let's fast forward to when LSB is in widespread use. Application vendors start assuming that LSB is all they need to support "Linux". Distros who won't have a bar of the shitty legacy directory layout we've had to endure for decades will basically be punished for being forward-thinking.
So yeah, LSB sounds real great.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!