[lsb-discuss] What id driving the current ISO hype?

Wed Aug 8 15:06:36 UTC 2012

On 08/08/2012 06:37 AM, keld at keldix.com wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:05:55PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 2:34 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
>>>> I'm willing to help work to make it possible with minimal
>>>> resources to follow a POSIX-like model where you have one standard
>>>> but still participate with the ISO, and most of the decision making
>>>> and control remains in the hands of the LSB community on the
>>>> mailing list and weekly meetings (just like the Austin Group).
>>>>
>>>> However, if the rest of the LSB isn't interested in ISO, then I'm
>>>> not going to push for the ISO. I'm involved in the LSB for several
>>>> reasons, *one* of which is to look at restarting the ISO process.
>>>>
>>>> As a user of the LSB I consider it to be a standard of lower value
>>>> *specifically* because it's not an ISO standard, why? It displays
>>>> what appears to be a reluctance on the part of the LSB community to
>>>> work with other countries to resolve issues that are relevant to
>>>> all Linux stakeholders (consumers, industry and government), and to
>>>> work on consensus building.
>>>
>>> Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. However, in a certain light
>>> you are correct. The LSB is not a consensus building Standard, and
>>> was never intended as such. The LSB is a trailing specification that
>>> documents common practice across Linux distributions, with a bent
>>> towards the "enterprise distributions".
>>>
>>> If we were to "prescribe by consensus" what distributions have to
>>> implement we'd be out of the picture very quickly as distribution
>>> vendors would turn their backs if there were any perception of the
>>> LSB trying to prescribe what a Linux distribution should look like.
>>>
>>> LSB documents consensus that has been reached in the community and
>>> across distributions, we do not, for the most part, actively
>>> facilitate the consensus process. The process of reaching consensus
>>> is an organic process within the open source community taking place
>>> outside of committees and "formal meetings".
>>
>> Thanks for explaining that in more detail. I think it all makes perfect
>> sense once you explain the position from which you approach the issue.
>> Which I might add is never clearly spelled out anywhere that I've seen,
>> probably because it's a more practical and pragmatic approach to a
>> standard than I'd like to admit, but still perfectly reasonable.
>
>
> I think it is a misconception that fact-tracking and consensus-building
> are opposite terms. In fact the two concerns are often supporting eachother
> in the standards process.  In the ISO process what is standardized is often
> what is well established in the market place, thus it is fact-tracking.
> The POSIX standard is an example of this. There are also more inventive
> standards in the ISO realm. It is then what is the purpose of the
> standard that governs how inventive or fact-tracking a standard is.
> For LSB the goal is to make a common base for all Linux distributions,

NO NO NO, the LSB does NOT "make a common base for all Linux 
distributions", we document the common parts of existing Linux 
distributions, this is a very big difference, and basically the 
difference between a "leading" and a "trailing" standard.

> so this is the fact-tracking kind of standard, both in the Linux Foundation
> and ISO worlds.
>
> Wrt. consensus-building, all standards organizations I know of have a process for
> approving their standard, and this is the consensus-building part of
> the organisation. I am sure Linux Foundations also have rules for
> how to approve a standard like LSB.
>
>>>> If the LSB lists only ISVs as stakeholders, and those stakeholders
>>>> don't value ISO, and neither does the LSB community, then I'd like
>>>> to hear that.
>>>
>>> Our primary "customers" are ISVs and Distribution vendors. By
>>> documenting the ABI that is common across many distributions the LSB
>>> facilitates easier support of many distributions by any ISV. This is
>>> the basic value proposition of the LSB and why ISVs and distribution
>>> vendors should care. Despite this relatively simple and fundamental
>>> value proposition uptake of the LSB as a major component in the Linux
>>> ecosystem has been less than stellar. We can certainly reminisce
>>> about the reasons, and we have many times in the past. Having the ISO
>>> stamp on the LSB will not change this.
>
> In my environment, which is not American, but Danish, and European Union
> it really does give status that products are conforming to standards.
> Both Denmark and EU do give special treatment to ISO standards, e.g. for
> public procurement.

Thus public entities should not buy Windoze systems as there is no ISO 
standard that covers the crap from Redmond. Oh wait at some point they 
claimed POSIX compliance, which as we all know is not true, but maybe 
those writing the checks don't know that yet.

Sorry for being cynical here, but your statement just ignores the 
reality of the world we live in.

> This recognintion is not given for standards
> form Linux Foundation. As chair of the Professional Linux Association in
> Denmark it is my firm belief that and ISO LSB standard will help my
> professional members getting their products and services sold
> and used  in Denmark and the EU.
>
> As a maker of a small Linux distribution one of my plans are to
> use LSB heavily for my packages. This could then spread to other distributions.
> If they are LSB compliant, they can use the packages from my distribution.
> I am accostumed to long penetration cycles, it can well be over 10 years
> before we see it happen, but an international standard for LSB is an important
> building block in that scenario.
>
> I think ISO LSB is not very important in the US market, but it really could
> be important in many other markets, just like ODF is important in many govermental
> markets all over the world.
>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> It's been sufficiently explained to me that I'm convinced that perhaps
>> "now" isn't the best time to bring back talk of the ISO.
>
> Well, IMHO "now" is as good as any other time. Many of the problems
> that were perceived with the PAS LSB process are not relevant anymore,
> or can be
> dealt with so that the problems be avoided.

Maybe part of the message hasn't quite been made explicit enough. The 
LSB as it is, is struggling with man power and the companies funding the 
LF and with it the LSB effort have in the past made it abundantly clear 
that there is no interest to fund work for an LSB ISO.

While I can sympathize with your line of thought, the sponsors of the LF 
do not appear to share your concern w.r.t. sales to public entities in 
the EU region or this would be a priority and they'd spend money on this 
type of effort.

Later,
Robert

-- 
Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei at suse.com
rschweik at ca.ibm.com
781-464-8147