RFC

[Stuart Anderson]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current, Ph.D. wrote:

> I'll look.  I definatly don't agree with the spec as I have read it
> last.  The OS does NOT include X, X is software.

X is middle ware. It is neither the OS, or the application. It fits
in between.

> I think the LSB has
> drifted way to far into standardizing software, and not defining a
> "base" OS.  X is one example of a huge hunk of software, that is fairly
> standard, but should be considered "software" and not the OS.

X can be easily broken down into 3 seperate chunks:

1) The X server
	This is the part that draw on your display. You don't have to be
	using an Xserver to use X applications. You just run them against
	an Xserver on another platform. The Xserver is clearly not part of
	the LSB.

2) The collection of X clients
	This is most of the stuff in /usr/X11R6/bin/. Window managers,
	xterms, xclock, etc, etc. You don't have to have these to use your
	Linux system. You generally don't have to have any of these to run
	an X application (ie the one thing you do want to do one you system).
	These are not part of the LSB

3) The base X libraries
	This is the real middleware that is used by a X application. These
	are the libraries that are defined by an existing standard, and do
	the work to implement the X Window System. This does NOT include the
	higher level libraries that are used by the desktops like KDE & Gnome.
	This is the only part of X that is included in the LSB.
 
> X standards should be in place somewhere, but I think it should be spun
> off into it's own project, and not part of the LSB.

No need to spin anything off. The X standards have been part of a group
that has been around for a very long time (although the name has changed a
few times). The X standards are currently maintained by X.org, and the
currently used implementation (for Linux) is provided by XFree86.

> I think there are
> too many problems to be addressed before X is considered, and it's just
> taking on too much responsability.  Plus, I firmly believe that MOST
> Linux servers in use today (commercially) can operate perfectly without
> X, providing proof that X need not be included in the "base."

By taking this position, you might be making the same mistake that was
made by the commercial UNIX vendors a few years ago. They took the position
of conceeding the desktop to Microsoft, and only concentrating on the server
side of things. I think that one of the really great things about Linux is
that it has created a new beachhead in the desktop market. In order to
support this, I think that it is important for the LSB to cover the base
portions of X as outlined above, even though it it middleware.


                                Stuart

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
http://www.metrolink.com/