Slashdot Mirror
Debian Dropping Linux Standard Base (lwn.net)
basscomm writes: For years (as seen on Slashdot) the Linux Standard Base has been developed as an attempt to reduce the differences between Linux distributions in an effort significant effort. However, Debian Linux has announced that they are dropping support for the Linux Standard Base due to a lack of interest.
From the article: "If [Raboud's] initial comments about lack of interest in LSB were not evidence enough, a full three months then went by with no one offering any support for maintaining the LSB-compliance packages and two terse votes in favor of dropping them. Consequently, on September 17, Raboud announced that he had gutted the src:lsb package (leaving just lsb-base and lsb-release as described) and uploaded it to the "unstable" archive. That minimalist set of tools will allow an interested user to start up the next Debian release and query whether or not it is LSB-compliant—and the answer will be 'no.'"
From the article: "If [Raboud's] initial comments about lack of interest in LSB were not evidence enough, a full three months then went by with no one offering any support for maintaining the LSB-compliance packages and two terse votes in favor of dropping them. Consequently, on September 17, Raboud announced that he had gutted the src:lsb package (leaving just lsb-base and lsb-release as described) and uploaded it to the "unstable" archive. That minimalist set of tools will allow an interested user to start up the next Debian release and query whether or not it is LSB-compliant—and the answer will be 'no.'"
Maybe we should look at creating some standards for editing and submitting articles, too.
It seems like Debian has decided to live up to its logo, the spiral. In adopting systemd and abandoning LSB, Debian has begun its death spiral.
My effort significant effort is effectively effortless. It's the effort effect at work. So there.
"editors" -- I don't think that word means what the slashdot "editors" think it means.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Does FreeBSD support the Linux Standard Base?
Why not go to the source and use Ubuntu instead?
would be to know where Debian is heading.
I'd very much like to support a distro which has clearly stated technical and societal values which mirror my own, but it's hard to distinguish exactly what Debian's values are anymore. Merely embracing GPL licensing and its values doesn't really tell you a lot, because even code with ethically questionable goals can be GPL.
Perhaps it's time for a Debian Conference in which "What do we stand for?" could be addressed and made a little more specific.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
How can they do that? Isn't it all about the base?
The LSB is RedHat saying "do it precisely the way we do it", and calling it a "standard".
What is all this doom and gloom about debian spiralling into oblivion and the end is coming? Did anybody read TFA before posting? The only thing that I can see from the LSB that has actually had a positive effect on me is the FHS, to which Debian is still adhering.
The LSB in its entirety actually contains a list of required libraries and standardized symlinks which may or may not be used on a system, but which must be there for "LSB compliance". IRL Debian package maintainers spend a lot of time and effort building dependancy lists into their packages so you DON'T have to have all those libraries on your system if you are not going to use them.
If you use dpkg or a wrapper (apt-get, aptitude, etc) to manage your system the LSB requirements are redundant at best and bloatware at worst.
The only situation where something like the LSB really makes sense is proprietary copy and run programs that depend on proprietary pieces. Even closed source proprietary software can utilize the apt database to resolve dependencies if it only has open source dependancies, or if the company hosts their own repository.
A large company running large numbers of Linux machines that wanted to standardize will probably (hopefully) do so to meet their requirements, rather than a generalized LSB desktop spec which attempts to be all things to all people.
If people went to their local computer store and bought software packages on CDs, and installed them on computers that did not have internet connectivity, the yes, up with the LSB. Do you do that? I don't even use a full installer package to install an OS anymore, just a network capable installer that then pulls all the dependancies in the appropriate versions from a repository on the net.
Yes, it was a noble concept, to try to define a standard set of always available libraries, and where they were, but in reality you rapidly run into the same problem software has on Windows, where software is written to depend on shared DLLs, but because people don't update their OS, or because people do update before the developer tests against a new version of the shared DLL, so software starts shipping with it's own copy of the relevant DLLs, and you end up with multiple versions of standard DLLs on your system.
When I started playing with slackware years ago, I really wished for something like the LSB, because I was sneakernetting everything home or taking days to download things on dialup. Those days are now distant memories.
Both rpm and apt solve the same problems, but do so without requiring a pile of unused libraries that just sit around cluttering up your system.
And just as a last point, how in the world does the LSB/NO LSB discussion compare in any way to the systemd/sysvinit discussion? One of them fundamentally changes the way a system operates, the other one just installs a bunch of packages that you can install just fine on your own. That's not an apples and oranges comparison, that is an apple and cinderblock comparison.
"Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
https://xkcd.com/349/
And what's even better... https://www.debian.org/ports/k...
I'm not sure there's ever been that much interest. It's more of a theoretical standard, useful for people packaging binaries with hard coded paths, but even that isn't particularly useful right now. The LSB lost credibility from the Debian side from the start by picking the rival RPM as the packaging manager, and while I gather that different was papered over in time, the other fundamental issues - differing library versions, different standards for inclusion, etc - that prevent the concept of a "universal" package never got resolved.
It's probably a good thing it's going, a bad mostly ignored "standard" is probably worse than no standard at all, as it leads developers to make assumptions about what's available that they probably shouldn't.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Systemd is not bad at all really, all of my scripts execute well. Maybe the default settings are not what you need so you just configure some of your own rc style scripts to be run and problem solved. Its not like systemd hs taken away the old startup model, you can use it quite happily under systemd, so I don't know what the problem is. No one is forcing you to use prerequisite based startup in systemd and I do not myself, all systemd is adds additional capability to what is already available.
Funny enough, I've noticed in every single *buntu instance where I've gone from upstart to systemd, the boot times have gotten longer. One of the many reasons why I figure upstart was a better choice to modernize the init system, it's actually better at the "being an init system" part! Unfortunately Canonical sabotaged any chances they might have had due to their CLA, but ironically enough upstart probably remains the most popular desktop Linux init system thanks to ChromeOS using it (and Google has shown zero inclination to change; I suspect if it really ever needs it, which it likely won't for quite some time, Google will just maintain a fork of upstart).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Remember a short while ago when the minimal install images were less than 50mb
... fortunately Puppy linux can build a working system with debian packages without the standard required and base packages