<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Ted Ts'o <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tytso@mit.edu" target="_blank">tytso@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 02:05:38PM -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:<br>
><br>
> 2.) One of the core charters, at least for as long as I have been<br>
> involved in the LSB, was to attempt to provide an environment that<br>
> is targeted towards the Enterprise market.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't know that I would characterize it that way. Historically, I<br>
think it would be fairer to say that the goal was to focus where the<br>
LSB could make an impact. That happened to be the enterprise market,<br>
mainly because the year of the desktop was always "next year", and so<br>
while there were essentially *no* ISV's that were really focusing on<br>
the desktop market (except for the enterprise desktop/workstation<br>
market) there were ISV's selling Linux products into the ISV space.</blockquote><div>.. etc.</div><div><br></div><div>thanks, Ted, for the thoughts. A lot of good stuff in there. In particular you </div><div>reminded us of something I also say periodically but hasn't been tossed</div>
<div>out there for a bit:</div><div><br></div><div>without getting into a Saturday Night Live style skit about LSB, it's</div><div>a floor wax AND a dessert topping... the term does happen to be</div><div>rather overloaded, since it's all of a piece of a trademark reserved for</div>
<div>a very specific purpose, a specification (a part of which is formal enough</div><div>to be an ISO standard, although we're not actively maintaining it), and</div><div>and an open source/standards project. when I'm talking about it,</div>
<div>I mean the workgroup/community, if that helps clarify. </div><div><br></div><div>hey, what do you mean it's not the year of the desktop? :)</div><div><br></div><div>it does make sense to me to continually evaluate that work being done</div>
<div>is being useful to people by actually solving problems, and that's why</div><div>there have been some proposals over time to adjust course a bit. there</div>
<div>was an interesting proposal about a year ago to leverage the "knowledge</div><div>base" that now exists of distribution details and use it to produce a </div><div>porting aid that perhaps would not have borne much relationship to</div>
<div>LSB-the-standard-and-associated-tools, and would not have had anything</div><div>to do with the LSB Certified mark - that particular proposal did not/has</div><div>not gained enough traction but I think it's good we ask such questions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jeff put "LSB Charter" on the agenda for the next meeting and I think</div><div>that's actually a bit too big of a title, even if that's the way Russ requested</div><div>it, but I'd like to be sure that a "business as usual" LSB 5.0, which as I might</div>
<div>add seems overly ambitious in targets given the lack of contributors, directly</div><div>paid or volunteer, is the best thing for the group to be spending its time on. </div><div>In a way I'm becoming an outsider in that discussion; while I have personal</div>
<div>opinions which I will continue to voice (you guys don't get off that easy) I'm</div><div>no longer sponsored to work extensively on the project. </div><div><br></div><div>On mobile, Ted mentions Meego... to be pedantic, the effort to do something</div>
<div>that leveraged LSB learnings was actually for its predecessor, Moblin.</div><div>The Meego "Compliance" effort used a different approach, because a</div><div>number of people had decided the LSB-style approach wasn't going to work</div>
<div>(I'm still not sure what that was based on, since the Moblin approach had</div><div>not reached a point where it could either be proven or disproven before the</div><div>whole system was discarded in favor of Meego). Meego proposed a stack-based</div>
<div>approach that you could look sideways at and convince yourself was a little</div><div>bit closer to how Android approaches the topic (use the stack as is). Well, </div><div>presumably all of you know that that system was discarded its major backers.</div>
<div>There is a binary portability model in consideration for Tizen but unfortunately</div><div>at the moment I'm not in a position to say anything more about it. Within</div><div>the latter two of those three efforts there are major variants that have very</div>
<div>interesting constraints, such as In-Vehicle usage, and even there potential</div><div>divergences (IVI for cars is not likely to be identical to IVI for yachts :).</div><div><br></div><div>So even from my limited perspective, "mobile" is a very complex topic. </div>
<div><br></div></div>