LSB Commands and Utilities, Draft proposal
anderson at metrolink.com
Mon Jul 5 23:09:38 PDT 1999
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Julie Haugh wrote:
> As Linux becomes more mainstream (read: as companies start sending
> money to Red Hat and other Linux distributors and hope to see something
> they can use and sell to their customers ...) the need for a UNIX98
> brandable version of Linux is going to grow.
> Should we view UNIX98 compliance as a long term objective or hope
> that the large companies who are infusing cash into Red Hat and others
> don't happen to notice that Linux is non-compliant?
I agree that UNIX98 is where things should be heading. For the purposes of
the LSB however, we can't just state that everything must comply with UNIX98
or else we wouldn't have any compliant implementations. Fixing all of the
differences will take some time. We can however define the LSB and being
UNIX98 with a list of differences. This allows us to reference a large
body of specifications and only document the differences.
Stuart R. Anderson anderson at metrolink.com
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
4711 North Powerline Road 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.938.0283 voice: 803.951.3630
fax: 954.938.1982 SkyTel: 800.405.3401
More information about the lsb-discuss