Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Foundation Promises LSB4

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the making-it-easier-to-like-us dept.

gbjbaanb writes "Ever thought it was difficult to write software for Linux? For multiple distros? InternetNews reports that the LSB is making a push for their next release (due out later this year) that should help make all that much easier. Although the LSB has not lived up to expectations, this time around Linux has a higher profile and ISVs are more interested. This is to help persuade them to develop applications that will run on any LSB-compliant Linux distribution. If it gets adopted, LSB 4 could bring a new wave of multidistribution Linux application development. 'It is critically important for Linux to have an easy way for software developers to write to distro "N," whether it's Red Hat, Ubuntu or Novell,' [said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation.] 'The reason you need that is because we don't want what happened to Unix to happen to Linux in terms of fragmentation.' The LSB defines a core set of APIs and libraries, so ISVs can develop and port applications that will work on LSB-certified Linux distributions."

3 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. A simple explanation for ISVs: by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you want to write for distro foo, you release the source code and get to work collaborating with distro foo. Someone will package your program, and you'll be fine.

    If you don't release source code, you can expect endless pain, and I hope that doesn't change.

    1. Re:A simple explanation for ISVs: by Eighty7 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Neglecting proprietary software now makes you a zealot? Hey sign me up, because I actually prefer to contribute to software that I'm free to run/modify/distribute. Weird concept, I know.

      And btw, GP didn't say GPL-only. There are many free-software licenses, as everyone including the FSF will tell you.

  2. How stupid are you? by khasim · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As far as I am concerned, I never tried compiling Apache on Redhat and installing the resulting binary on Ubuntu/Slackware/YDL/.... That would be interesting indeed. Please try that and if it works I'll reconsider my opinion.

    How stupid are you? Oh, I get it. You're some uninformed kid who's trying to dig himself out of the hole he's argued himself into.

    I copied Apache from Debian Sid to Ubuntu Hardy Heron. It worked.

    I copied Apache from Fedora 9 to Ubuntu Hardy Heron. It worked.

    Looks like you don't know shit about what you're talking about. But what did I expect?

    Keep you witty comments for yourself

    Why? It amuses me to mock kids like you in public. I have facts, you have your opinions. Sucks to be you.

    And VMWare RECOMPILES A MODULE FOR EACH INSTALL YOU DO. Did you follow that part? Can you guess why?

    It's funny because you keep trying to bail yourself out with rhetorical questions. Because you don't know the answers and you're hoping that I don't, either.

    Sucks to be you. The modules get recompiled because they need the exact kernel version number. That's all. That's why the same code will compile on each kernel update. 100% of the code is the same.

    Let me guess, you're still living in Mom's basement.

    I remember working on a product for Linux..

    Yeah, sure you did. LOL

    What would YOU do, sir, in this case?

    I'd stop trying to pretend that you know anything about what you're talking about.

    You're confusing 3rd party libraries and the vendor's support for them with Linux.

    Linux is the GPL'd portion. You can fix bugs in Linux.

    With a vendor, you're fucked. And if you DID work on such a project you would KNOW that. LOLx2

    It's not whether the code works or not, it's that the code MIGHT not work on other platforms.

    Keep talking. It's hilarious. :)

    So Linux is "fragmented" because your 3rd party vendor's EULA states that they only support Red Hat 4. LOLx3

    And, as I've already shown, Apache DOES work. But feel free to say that it MIGHT not. LOLx4

    Repeat after me: for most projects, recompiling on every platform is not an option. There are hundreds of them. And I'm not even talking about testing them.

    LOLx5

    But ... somehow ... Apache can handle it. And Samba. And BIND. And dozens of OTHER apps.

    But YOU ... you have PROBLEMS ... therefore Linux is "fragmented".

    LOLx5

    When a thousand other people are doing exactly what you claim CANNOT be done ... sorry, I'm going to have to go with the thousand who can do it. Sucks to be you. LOLx6

    It's even more true when you depends on libraries that aren't available on all platforms.

    It's like you're retarded or something. You CANNOT see the difference between your 3rd party vendor's EULA and Linux.

    Oh, it's because you're too stupid to understand the difference, isn't it?

    The solution? Simply put a certificate that represents not a distro, but a set of components that are guaranteed to work in a consistent manner among many distro.

    The LSB have been trying that since 1998.

    They've failed for 10 years.

    Yet people like you (stupid people) STILL claim that the LSB is needed because Apache and Samba and others CANNOT do what they've been doing for YEARS.

    I have facts. You have your opinions.

    The facts contradict your opinions.

    Linux is NOT the same as a 3rd party vendor's EULA.

    Sucks to be you.

    LOL