Slashdot Mirror
Latest Linux Standards Base Gets Vendor Support
Neopallium writes to tell us that in a recent announcement at the Desktop Linux Summit the Free Standards Group reports fourteen of the leading Linux vendors have pledged support for the newest release of the Linux Standards Base. From the article: "'The Release of LSB 3.1 is another milestone achieved by the industry and the Open Source Community that delivers ever increasing value to customers,' said Reza Rooholamini, director of enterprise solutions engineering at Dell. 'It enables further uniformity and standardization across applications and distributions that allows quicker deployment of Linux solutions with higher levels of quality.'"
Because it has nothing to do with desktops, per se. It is a specification for directory layouts, config files, and required libraries, and its purpose is to make sure that applications that compile on one system that complies with the LSB will compile on all systems that comply with it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's the Linux app ISV's who need to write their apps to this "standard".
So far, that isn't happening.
Why not "Linux Standard Desktop"?
Because it's existed for far longer then the vast majority of people have even considered using linux for a desktop system (Disclaimer: I have been using linux for my primary desktop for around 6 years)
Meh, shouldn't feed the troll and all that, but LSB set standards for things far beyond the desktop.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Because it has nothing to do with desktops, per se. It is a specification for directory layouts, config files, and required libraries, and its purpose is to make sure that applications that compile on one system that complies with the LSB will compile on all systems that comply with it.
Um no. Its purpose is that you can create one LSB-compliant application and have it work on all LSB-compliant systems, but it doesn't follow that anything that compiles on an LSB-compliant system is an LSB-compliant application. This might be fairly obvious and what you intended to say, but it's important that people don't think that just because it compiles on their machine it'll work for others.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There is a technical term for this:
Swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.
On top of the fact that virtualization has numerous problems with accelerated graphics while you're suggesting games for this purpose; I can't believe you're posting this seriously.
There are a lot of people that think having to have a separate library to run a program (gtk vs QT et al) is bloat. Now we're thinking about a separate OS for each App? Ack.
Technology tips and tricks.
> Um, wasn't Linux supposed to break away from standards and uniformity
:)
No--where on earth did you come up with that silly notion? Linux has achieved most of its success through leveraging existing standards (e.g. POSIX, TCP/IP, ISO language standards). The one that tries to "break away" from standards is MS, because standards don't promote customer lock-in. If you follow standards, then customers may be able to look at other vendors that follow the same standards.
Standards in Linux are not mandated (because you have the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, pretty much), but are greatly respected and generally followed when possible/reasonable. Standard-breaking Linux projects (and I admit there are some) are almost always completely outside of the mainstream.
> or is that just breaking away from Microsoft standards?
"Microsoft standards?" Isn't that an oxymoron?
What MS mostly has is ad-hoc, undocumented arbitrary code which the rest of the world is just supposed to accept as-is without questioning. The main notice they take of standards is when the see an opportunity to embrace-and-extend to subvert a standard (see ISO C, HTML, Java, Kerberos, etc., etc.)
> Sarcasm if you didn't get it.
Um...does that mean that you're a troll, rather than just a very clueless person? If so, then count me as trolled, but my post is really addressed to those who are clueless enough to think there's some validity at all to what you posted.
No, it's not a coincidence, considering that nothing is coinciding. Linux is already more than usable, and windows is still being majorly re-thought. As for linux desktops not having "arrived" yet, that's a ridiculous concept that only lives on for people who still use GNOME.