[lsb-discuss] addition of "profiles" to LSB certification

[Dan Kohn]

Alexey, these issues are still definitely under discussion.  I  
personally am of the opinion that using multiple sub-brands will be  
clearer for end-users (e.g., Certified for Windows Mobile, Certified  
for Windows Server 2003, etc.).  However, we still have several more  
months before we need to decide on branding.

            - dan
-- 
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan at dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-415-233-1000>


On Feb 27, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:

> There is a small doubt regarding to the profiles approach.
>
> It looks like LSB Desktop is getting an optional module for the 'LSB
> Certified' mark,
> that is a little bit confusing from ISV point of view.
> ISV shall say to their users: "My application is 'LSB Certified', it
> will work on any 'LSB Certified' distro,
> but only if it is tested against Desktop profile, so you have to check
> 'LSB Certified' mark of your distro and
> check the profiles it tested against at the LF certification  
> register".
>
> May be these implicit dependencies can confuse end-users more than two
> explicit 'LSB Certified' marks.
> What do you think?
>
> Alexey.
>
>> With all the traveling I've been doing lately, I almost forgot to  
>> write
>> this up:
>>
>> In an earlier thread, we discussed the idea of adding a desktop
>> certification [1]:
>>
>>   Given all the requests we've received to make a change, it's  
>> time to
>>   revisit the policy of having a single certification for both  
>> server and
>>   desktop (i.e., going with a single certification was the wrong  
>> decision,
>>   my fault entirely). The demand clearly shows we need two  
>> certifications,
>>   though we need to be careful about how we brand them. (That was  
>> my primary
>>   objection the first time around--many of the server products  
>> going through
>>   the certification process at the time would have ended up being
>>   LSB Desktop certified, and if that isn't confusing, I don't know  
>> what is..)
>>
>> [1] http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2007- 
>> January/003487.html
>>
>> We discussed this on the February 6 call and came to a resolution:
>>
>> We're sticking with a single certification, but with the ability  
>> to test
>> against different profiles. So, you can run the desktop tests
>> on the platforms that support them, not run them where they don't
>> make sense, and use the "LSB Certified" mark for all of them.
>> The profiles tested will be listed in the certification register.
>>
>> Current profiles are Core and Desktop. With the OSDL merger, CGL may
>> may become a profile too, though we're still working out details.
>>
>> All existing LSB 3.1 certified distributions will be registered as
>> certified against both the Core and Desktop profiles.
>>
>> -ian
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss