X and LSB

Greg Hayes ghayes at syncomm.org
Thu Mar 16 22:39:12 PST 2000


> This is a major stance your taking, and I think you may regret it.  By
> saying the LSB is in place to service only ISVs and the like, the LSB will
> essentially be seen by the Linux community as "A orginization trying to
> impose standards so that commercial software vendors can exploit Linux.
> The LSB has no basis in defining standards for Linux, but rather is an
> orginization that serves as mediator between the Big 3 Distributions and
> commercial software vendors."
> 
> I am not trying to flame here.  And I am definately not going to tell you
> where to guide the LSB if it's already been decided that only ISVs with
> deep pockets and Linux distributions with the highest sales figures will
> be calling the shots.
> 
> Setting the LSB up as anything other than a basic standards orginization
> for the Linux community itself will cause a huge fallout in support.  No
> one wants to see the standards revolve around only the parties who are
> making money off them (even if it is completely indirectly).
> 
> So... I don't know, that's just plain scary to me.
> 

I'm sorry, but you just don't get it at all. In fact, I find this entire
rant simply a discussion of an uninformed individual who just wants "his
way" or "no way". Look, other people might kiss your ass because you
have a Ph.D., but a Ph.D. in Chemistry doesn't mean you can school us in
Computer Science. I and many others on this list have been developing
applications and contributing to projects for Linux since kernel 1.2.13.
I want a standard base! I'm not an ISV! I just want something that I
know I can write to in order to develop software for "Linux"! Can you
please, just admit defeat now... it will look better on you in the long
run.

> > This does not mean you have to configure X on any machines, it does
> > not mean you have to include any X servers, applications,
> > documentation, or fonts.  We're talking about the core X libraries.
> > Calling the inclusion of X "big and bloated" or talking about whether
> > or not a server is configured to include X is disingenuous.
> 
> Well, that's something I can accept in consept, that it's just some core
> libraries.  But, it sort of makes the point meaningless, doesn't it?
> Require X libraries, but not any form of X itself?
> 

I use X applications remotely all the time. As a matter of fact, I don't
believe that I have set up an X server for several of the servers on my
network, but I still use X applications on them.
 
> > Also, including X in the specification does not add much work to the
> > spec.  Stuart has already pointed this out.
> 
> I never have argued the work that has been done.  I feel it's been done
> fairly well.  But, how far down the road are you looking at this project?
> By not seperating things into managable hunks, if one of the few people
> who know the inside scoop drops out, there will be almost no one in the
> community able or willing to step up and take on the job.
> 
> > In addition, we are not targetting ultra-small embedded systems or
> > special cases.
> 
> Yes, you are targeting "special cases."  Specifically, commercial ISVs and
> the biggest of the big Linux distributions.  You just made that point
> yourself.
> 

I'm sorry, but your methods of deduction are completely flawed. Perhaps,
you should grab a logic 101 class somewhere and brush up on fallacies.

Gregory S Hayes
-



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list