Big Names Back Possible Linux Standards

Sean Feryl writes "Adobe Systems, IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Novell, RealNetworks and Red Hat are all backing the new Linux standards effort led by the Free Standards Group to form standards for key components of Linux desktop software, including libraries, application runtime and install time. The goal is to encourage the development of more applications for the Linux platform. 'With this complex and costly development and support environment, independent software vendors may choose not to target the Linux desktop, leading to reduced choice for end users and an inability to compete with proprietary operating systems', the group said." Also covered on FoxNews.

Comments

Any chance

[Anonymous Coward]

they can all decide to put similar files in similar places?

Not /etc/X11/

I LVOE IT!

This sounds good

[Stevyn]

It looks like companies, specifically Adobe, are realizing that people want to switch from windows to linux, but a big problem is still the native applications that are available. This is the long time chicken and egg problem facing linux growth. Adobe reader 7 for linux is great and works just as good as the windows counterpart so hopefully we'll see photoshop and the other parts of CS2 ported to linux. And if microsoft doesn't want to port their applications to linux (for obvious reasons) then I think people can still find good alternatives to their programs and use programs like photoshop that they are familiar with.

good intentions, but really a trojan horse

[CDPatten]

The more big companies get involved in forcing standards, the less the single developer at home has to say about what happens with the OS.

One of the strengths that Linux has is that anyone can write good code and alter the direction. If Money driven corporations start calling shots, then politics come into play, and they start promoting/forcing standards that are advantageous to how they believe the market should be, or standards that work best with their business model.

This is really a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It can't come soon enough

[manno]

I'm probably going to catch H. E. double hockey sticks for this, but it's about frigging time!

A. lack of standardized libraries across the Linux board is a big problem, I hope they release at least 3 three standards though, Server, Desktop/Workstation/Laptop, and Embedded.

-manno

P.S. Did you know OO.o2.0's spell check has the correct spelling of "frigging"?

Re:It can't come soon enough

[niiler]

I personally, am not sure about standardization of the install process. Currently there are three major package types: rpm, deb, and tgz. Each has its own package management, each of which has its strengths and weaknesses. RPM requires a large bloated database for functionality. It also seems to have the bulk of Linux users behind it. DEB is a close second as it is the package type behind many of the live CDs (Morphix, Knoppix) as well as Ubuntu. Apt seems to be pretty cool, but I have too limited experience with it to comment. TGZ is the classical slackware based and oldest package format. Installs are lightning fast and don't require a large database. With dependency info being built into each package now, tools like slapt-get do just about everything I understand debian package management can do.

In addition to the package types, it is nice to be able to put libraries anywhere on the system so that those of us who use multiple versions can get away with it. Standardizing on library locations could mean that this flexibility goes away. It seems that with good ./configure scripts, libraries are discovered without the need for such standard locations.

Finally, from the point of view of security, it is nice to know that virus and malware writers can't depend on my system having standard setup A. So many of their attempts to subvert my system (assuming they get past my firewalls, find a flaw in permissions, etc...) will go for naught.

Standards do have a place at the level of the kernel, or within a given window manager. But part of the draw of linux is its flexibility. Standardization beyond a certain point is not productive to those of us who need the ability to customize.

A Window By Any Other Name

[yancey]

I find it interesting and somewhat disturbing that the only way to achieve broad acceptance of an operating system is to offer the product with as few options as possible. An gross exaggeration? Yes, but consider this. The article states, "Developing applications for Linux desktops is a complicated endeavor now because of significant differences between two prevailing versions, called GNOME (GNU Network Object Model Environment) and KDE (K Desktop Environment)." So what we're saying is that an OS cannot be accepted by the masses if it has a choice of desktop environments, because it's hard to develop for two desktop environments? You know, a window is a window is a window. Is the code needed to create a window not abstracted from the window manager? Is what you display within the window dependent on the window manager? I don't see why this is so hard. Someone explain it to me. I know you will. :-)

Re:A Window By Any Other Name

[Otter]

You know, a window is a window is a window. Is the code needed to create a window not abstracted from the window manager?

KDE and GNOME aren't just window managers. The code needed to make a full-featured (or even not full-featured) KDE or GNOME application relies on the presence of KDE or GNOME libraries and resources.

Re:A Window By Any Other Name

[mrchaotica]

Turning all this plumbing into neutral components (Desktop-wise) would be a hugely complex task.

The fact that it's complex doesn't make it any less necessary! Unless you want to start saying "I use the GNOME OS" or "I use the KDE OS" -- if you want it to remain "the Linux OS" -- all the plumbing has to be desktop-neutral, or else it's useless for people trying to make "Linux applications." That's why Adobe et al. don't want to port their applications to Linux -- it's because currently, there is no such thing!

Apt...rpm...KDE...Gnome...choices choices

[manarth]

independent software vendors may choose not to target the Linux desktop

From TFA:

Some big names in the computer industry are pledging to make the development of desktop applications for the Linux operating system much easier than it has been.

I'm all for a good set of standards; installation already varies across apts, rpms, and make installs. The article raises the issue of a standard desktop installation method, question is, will we see yet another install method?

How will this impact server systems and installation methods (apt/rpm) for non-desktop systems? What about software that operates desktop framework components and what you'd typically consider 'server' stuff...will there be two installation methods, one for the desktop and another for the service?

Cross-desktop compatibility...

I'm sure everyone here knows of KDE and Gnome as the two most popular desktops - so will these standards just be targeted at these? Or just one of these? What about the (near infinite) variety of other windowing systems - the only common thread is X-Windows (and not always that...what's about Sun's JDS Java Desktop System?)

Packaging Photoshop for linux will always be difficult because of this variety - Adobe can only support so many variations. The only way this will work is if they standardise on a single desktop system, killing off the others.

TFA talks about 'the first specification for Linux desktop software' and 'It plans to give compliant applications a "Linux Standard Base Desktop" certification mark.'. This does indeed suggest the death knell is sounding for variety on the linux desktop.

Re:Photoshop?

[aichpvee]

Lack of "standardization" hasn't stopped a lot of high end (much higher end than Adobe) app developers from porting to Linux or developing natively on it. I think it's much more likely that they don't have the balls to take a "risk" on porting it. The slightly less likely reason is that they don't have the skills, though one would think they could afford to bring people in who do if that were the problem.

Either way, I don't see why anyone should give a fuck about a "standardized" Linux that has anything to do with Adobe. They haven't done anything for us and I for one am definitely not interested in any standard that they're involved in without some solid support.

And for what it's worth, I'd be willing to buy Photoshop for Linux today if they offered it, assuming that they make the necessary UI changes to actually integrate with a Linux desktop, which running it under WINE (that does work for doing a lot of things) fails miserably at.

Re:Photoshop?

[Fred_A]

Adobe had a weird version of Photoshop on SGI Irix for a while which seemed to be some kind of semi emulated Mac thing. So they might pull the same kind of stunt on Linux (except that the outcome would probably be cleaner thanks to Wine).

Re:Linux standards - history repeating itself?

[kebes]

What we should do is just accept that RedHat, Ubuntu, SuSE, Caldera, Debian, etc, are all different operating systems that happen to share a common source code -base-.

I feel like you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the strengths of Linux is that it has variety (hence it evolves, matches very specific needs, etc.). I agree that this is a good thing. Having different distros target different needs, different types of users, different types of usage environments... this is a good thing. A single standard may not be able to anticipate all the strange ways people want to use their OS... and sooner or later some distro would have to break the standard to do what they want.

Does that make the standard pointless? I would argue that it does not. Simply put, if a particular distro needs to break the standard to do what they want, then that's fair enough. They will meet a particular need and pay the price of reduced compatibility, interoperability, and ease-of-use. It probably won't be a big deal since the users of that niche distro will know what they are getting themselves into.

The place where the standard helps is all those things that don't have to be different from distro to distro. When someone is creating a new distro, they may not particularly care whether the cdrom gets mounted to /mnt/cdrom or /media/cdrom ... it makes no difference to them but they have to pick something. Here's where the standard comes into play. When the choice doesn't impact the quality of the distro, then why not use the "standard" way of doing things. That way, it will be easiest to integrate applications not originally written for your distro. In the limit, if you followed the standard closely enough, then all kinds of software would run, without modification, on your particular distro. This is a good thing.

So again, my point is that it is good to have standards so that people have something to follow when they need to make (arbitrary) choices. Of course no one is forced to follow the standard. And of course, this by and large is happening in the linux community. The filesystem is remarkably standardized when you think about it. Still, there's nothing wrong with formalizing a new standard, and then seeing if people follow it. I wish them all the luck, since this will make my life (as a linux user) easier. Even though you may think of Mandriva and Kubuntu as different operating systems, I like the fact that I was able to move from one to the other without difficulty.

Re:Photoshop?

[VdG]

I suspect that Adobe are more interested in it for Flash, now that they look set to buy Macromedia. In particular, for mobile computing. There was a piece in The Register about them buying Mobile Innovation, a mobile phone design company.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/20/macromedia _mobile_innnovation/
Mobile Innovation seem to be a Symbian operation, primarily, but also do Linux work and there's quite a lot of opportunity for Linux in high-end mobile devices.