[lsb-discuss] Don't blame LSB and standards, please: was: Re: Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please
rjschwei at suse.com
Tue Apr 1 12:57:52 UTC 2014
On 04/01/2014 04:03 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 12:26 AM, Hohndel, Dirk wrote:
>> On 3/31/14, 4:52 PM, ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson""<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2014 11:06 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>>> it generally doesn't result in changes that lead to
>>>> unification, at least not as far as the big picture is concerned.
>>> By now people should be aware of the changes taking place on the
>>> core/baseOS level so if downstream distribution building upon the
>>> components where the fragmentation is seizing to exist, like it or not,
>>> admitting it or not the undisputed fact is those distributions are being
>>> unified up to certain extent which honestly is not a bad thing, it truly
>>> is a win win situation for everybody and the linux ecosystem in whole.
>> SHOULD being the operative word.
>> Following this email thread I find it encouraging how many things you
>> are able to state as fact and out of the depth of knowledge that clearly
>> shows your commitment to the process of standardization and the promise
>> of active contribution.
> If I'm going to be jumping on standardization bandwagon I will need to
> know how open LSB and linux foundation in general is to start coming up
> with a standardization model where each of the linux standards out there
> complement each other as opposed to compete against each other so we
> dont wind up with scenarios like this [¹].
> Starting with adjusting the LSB specification to make it GENIVI*®*
> compliant so when you become LSB X.0 Certified you are also GENIVI
> The reason for this is obvious the traditional desktop/server
> distribution model as we come to know it through out the year are
> seizing to exist so distributions will either adapt to the emerging
> "smart" phone/tablet generation or risk becoming extinct in the process.
Sorry I fail to follow your logic here. Are you predicting that the
backend of the tablet/smart phone will be run on the same
distribution/OS than the tablet/smart phone?
That's a bold prediction, not certain how many people would go along
> It's only a matter of time before Intel/Samsung <someone else> realize
> that there is a market opportunity/business case for completely tablet
> run or tabled controlled infrastructure a.k.a "smart infrastructure"
> which most likely would be built upon Tizen ( that is if they have not
> figured it our already )
Just because I can control my data center from my tabled, which is
partially possible already btw, does not imply that the distribution on
the servers is Tizen or Android or Firefox OS or.....
Anyway, I am probably misinterpreting your "tabletization" statements.
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
Public Cloud Architect
rjschwei at suse.com
rschweik at ca.ibm.com
More information about the lsb-discuss