Slashdot Mirror
How the LSB Keeps Linux One Big Happy Family
blackbearnh writes "The Linux Standard Base is the grand attempt to create a binary-level interface that application developers can use to create software which will run on any distribution of Linux. Theodore Tso, who helps maintain the LSB, talked recently with O'Reilly News about what the LSB does behind the scenes, how it benefits ISVs and end users, and what the greatest challenges left on the plate are. 'One of the most vexing problems has been on the desktop where the Open Source community has been developing new desktop libraries faster than we can standardize them. And also ISVs want to use those latest desktop libraries even though they may not be stable yet and in some ways that's sort of us being a victim of our own success. The LSB desktop has been getting better and better and despite all the jokes that for every year since I don't know probably five years ago, every year has been promoted as the year of the Linux desktop. The fact of the matter is the Linux desktop has been making gains very, very quickly but sometimes as a result of that some of the bleeding edge interfaces for the Linux desktop haven't been as stable as say the C library. And so it's been challenging for ISVs because they want to actually ship products that will work across a wide range of Linux distributions and this is one of the places where the Linux upstream sources haven't stabilized themselves.'"
I don't think I've even heard the LSB mentioned in the last five years. (Most of the distro-related squabbling and fretting died down after the number of meaningful distros contracted from the days of Corel Linux boxes at the aisle ends in CompUSA.) If they've been quietly doing something useful all this time, kudos for them!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Source already seems to be an acceptable de-facto standard for distributing programs in the least OS-specific way. Let's stick to that :)
... A lot happier.
I'm really tired of having companies come in with some product that we are "dictated" to use (yes, I work for a US government organization), only to learn that my chosen linux platform isn't supported...
That is a battle I would love to sweep under the carpet with, "why don't you support the LSB?"
"...to create an x86-32 (and maybe, if you're really lucky, x86-64) binary-level interface that application developers can use..."
There, fixed that for you.
Best of luck getting your binary package to run on Linux/PPC, Linux/ARM, Linux/Alpha, Linux/Sparc, etc...
If you want your software to run on multiple Linxen, you need to make it open and let the distros compile it and build the packages. That's it.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
I don't care if their "standard" only requires a "sub-set" of the RPM format. Just dump it.
Write the specifications for a .lsb install format.
Then encourage the other package systems to include your format in their systems. I should be able to apt-get install foo.lsb and have it SEEMLESSLY integrate with Debian's package management system. And the same file with rpm -i foo.lsb and so forth.
There, the first problem is solved. People can easily identify the LSB packages and install / remove / upgrade / back-rev / whatever them.
And they would be completely platform NEUTRAL which SHOULD have been their first goal.
So, now that you can install their packages ... they need to start identifying which libraries and such are required by foo. Is there any reason that those libraries would not also be distributed as .lsb packages? Meta packages if necessary?
And don't even get me started on where Apache gets installed vs where they tell you a commercial web server should be installed. Apps is apps. It doesn't matter whether the distribution shipped it, you built it from source or you bought it from an ISV. Unless you're the LSB. Then it matters.
I believe the opposite is true. Greater compatibility leads to more choices, not less. You eliminate vendor lock-in and allow easy migration to other distros. Microsoft knows this; it's what prevents people from leaving Windows.
Let's face it: if Wine were 100% reliable, Windows would be dead. The LSB seems to accomplish much the same thing.
One of the main problems I see with adopting linux as a standard is that the distros vary too much from each other. One uses init.d, another event.d, one uses Gnome, another KDE, one uses LVM, another doesn't. I can see why companies don't want to support linux - there are too many variables. Linux is a mess.
I think things would be a lot easier if there was a minimum support standard that all distros held to. ie, a standard desktop, a standard filesystem hierarchy, a standard package manager, etc. I don't mean that these are the ONLY desktop, package manager etc, just that on supported distros they are guaranteed to be there.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I honestly don't get the need for LSB. Perhaps 10 years ago when we still had problems with RPM, but not today. Most people will never need to download software that isn't in the Ubuntu (or insert favorite distro here) repositories.
LSB specified file system layout when I was in the business about 10 years ago (I shared in the pain of converting Turbolinux from /usr/man -> /usr/share/man, etc. etc.).
Library version numbers are still important. C++ binaries are notoriously sensitive to gcc version and we must be able to support truly alien (ie non-distro software).
We will have truly arrived as a desktop O/S when it is possible to buy from Blizzard a World-of-Warcraft.tar.gz tarball that will Just Plain Work no matter which Linux distro we are using. Never mind packaging issues, though it would be nice to have RPMs of WoW.