LSB Commands and Utilities, Draft proposal

Aaron Gaudio icy_manipulator at
Mon Jul 12 15:43:40 PDT 1999

And lo, the chronicles report that Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo spake thusly unto the masses:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Daniel Bradley wrote:
> The MP3 player platform is considerably different. Chances are that you
> won't be installing much software on your MP3 player (or are people doing
> word processing in their dashboards now and I missed it?). An MP3 player
> is outside of the scope of LSB. The primary goal, as I understand it, is
> to provide a baseline of standard tools and libraries that applications
> can depend upon the existance of. In the case of an MP3 player, all the
> software that is necessary to run it will be installed by the OEM and no
> more software (beyond updates) should need to be installed. An application
> vendor isn't targeting an MP3 player as a potentail platform. Ditto for a
> router. These sort of specialized embedded systems are outside of the
> general scope of LSB, and I don't see any reason LSB should make an effort
> to include these platforms. They don't benefit from LSB, and LSB doesn't
> gain anything from limiting itself to include them.

Well the first and foremost (and IMO, most important) issue the LSB was
supposed to resolve was that of binary compatibility, and I think even
devices such as MP3 players and routers using Linux could gain from binary
compatibility, esp. if they want to allow third-party (non-OEM) extensions.

Parts of the LSB which deal with system calls at least should be applicable
here (for those who want only kernel-level compatibility, such as perhaps
Amiga) and possibly those which deal with runtime library support (such as

Just my $0.02


Aaron Gaudio
icy_manipulator @
"The fool finds ignorance all around him. The wise man finds ignorance within."
Use of any of my email addresses is subject to the terms found at By using any of my addresses, you
agree to be bound by the terms therein.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list