jdluhos at suse.cz
Tue Oct 24 01:24:10 PDT 2006
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 03:36, you wrote:
> At 2006/10/23 15:54+0200 Jiri Dluhos writes:
> > If we strictly mandate that LSB-compliant applications must use only
> > LSB libraries, it would paralyze the whole system development. We
> > will then get a classical bureaucratic deadlock (you cannot put a
> > library into LSB until it becomes known practice, and it will never
> > become good practice if it is not used, and it cannot be used before
> > it is in the LSB).
> But not imposing these restrictions is even more dangerous. If you
> allow applications to rely on features outside of the LSB there is a
> very high risk that the application will not work either at all or in
> the same way on different distributions.
Yes, there is definitely a risk, but, honestly, it is not our risk. :-)
The application developers are all responsible adults. If they use a special
library which is not in the LSB, they probably have a reason to do it, and
are ready to cope with possible compatibility problems.
Let's not be more strict than our competition. When you are developing
software for Windows, you have a standardized, (quite) well documented API
regarding the basic system features. If you use it, you are (quite)
guaranteed that it will work on many different configurations. You are free
to use any other libraries as well, and then you are on your own. You are the
one to make the choice.
Do we really want to build a world where developers are more limited than in
the realm of You-Know-Who? Certainly not.
Linux is, and always was, about freedom, both in use and in development. We
must not take the freedom away from the developers - even if it is a freedom
to use incorrect tools.
Jiri Dluhos, LSB development jdluhos at suse.cz
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. http://www.suse.cz
Lihovarska 1060/12 +420 296 542 384
190 00 Praha 9
More information about the lsb-discuss