Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Operating Systems Linux

Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation 245

Posted by timothy
from the choosing-lunch-is-much-more-difficult dept.
An anonymous reader submits a link to this story at Linuxlookup.com which says that "Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux today announce the creation of a common implementation of the LSB 2.0 which will serve as the base for future products. The project, called 'Linux Core Consortium' (LCC), is backed by Linux supporters such as Computer Associates, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, OSDL, and the Free Standards Group."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation

Comments Filter:
  • LSB? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaHat (247651) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:40AM (#10842281) Homepage
    It's taken this long to decide on what is the Least Significant Bit?

    Is that not it? It sure would be nice if the editors would stop posting articles that do not describe what they are intending to be describing.
    • Re:LSB? (Score:5, Informative)

      by calibanDNS (32250) <brad_staton@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:42AM (#10842305)
      LSB is the Linux Standard Base [wikipedia.org].
    • Re:LSB? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrankyFool (680025) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:43AM (#10842315)
      My thoughts exactly -- the problem is that we don't have a well-defined idea of what acronyms at this point are well-known enough. You wouldn't see anyone bitching about not expanding AGP, PCI, or SCSI, but hell, I don't know what LSB is...

      Well, I do now -- Linux Standard Base. See this link [linuxbase.org]

    • Re:LSB? (Score:5, Funny)

      by RandoX (828285) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:44AM (#10842334)
      LSB is obviously USB for Linux. Version 2.0 should offer twice as much throughput as LSB 1.0.
    • actually... (Score:2, Informative)

      by softwave (145750)
      http://www.linuxbase.org/ [linuxbase.org]
      LSB stands for Linux Standard Base. I quote rom the website:

      What is the LSB Project?
      The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.
    • Big Endian, or Middle endian? The article doesn't seem to say...
    • No, read again: They decided on how to implement it. Given that there are many different ways to implement a bit (bits on your hard disk are implemented completely different from CD-ROM bits, DRAM bits or register bits), it's not surprising that they needed that long.

      Currently they are arguing about the best implementation of the next significant bit.
    • Re:LSB? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AvantLegion (595806)
      >> Is that not it? It sure would be nice if the editors would stop posting articles that do not describe what they are intending to be describing.

      It sure would be nice if readers would stop playing dumb as a brick.

      It's "News for Nerds", not "News for N00bs Who Need Their Hands Held".

    • Nonono, LSB is a binary form of LSD when seen through an LCD, after reading FUD on why Linux isn't being adopted. It causes your computer to hallucinate Pluto [lyrics007.com] whilst running SETI@Home.
  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:40AM (#10842291) Homepage Journal
    Hell, it would be good news if it was just "Two Linux Vendors Agree ... on anything"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:42AM (#10842300)
    It really is amazing how Connectiva, Turbolinux, Progeny and Mandrake can come together to form one signle standard base.

    Its kind of like Voltron for crap.
  • by ezavada (91752) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:42AM (#10842309)
    I didn't see much about what it would actually consist of. Does anyone have links to such info?

    Will this include glibc standardization?
  • rpm vs. deb (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 120duff978 (762910) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:43AM (#10842314)
    Over time, the LCC is committed to increasing interoperability between and Debian and RPM-based technologies and will work toward a common binary core that can form the basis of both Debian and RPM-based distributions.
    Well, this is definately a start in the right direction. Many of the really user friendly distro (ubunu, united, lindash) are all Debian based. Good to see that RPM maybe loosing it's popularity.
    • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Skeezix (14602) <jamin@pubcrawler.org> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @12:10PM (#10842601) Homepage
      How does the announcement that they will work together to insure interoperability mean that RPM is losing popularity? Keep in mind the major vendors are still RPM-based: Red Hat, Novell SUSE, JDS (SUSE based), Mandrake...
      • How does the announcement that they will work together to insure interoperability mean that RPM is losing popularity?

        It doesn't. Anyone who has actually read the LSB already knows that LSB specifies RPM as the official, common, package manager.
    • Please tell me what advantages dpkg has over rpm.

      I dare you.

  • by joestar (225875) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:43AM (#10842316) Homepage
    Is available in the PR [mandrakesoft.com] and in the FAQ [mandrakesoft.com].

    It's interesting to notice the differences with UnitedLinux. LCC is not to push one Linux Standard, but to push the Linux standard (LSB).
  • by ClippyHater (638515) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:45AM (#10842336) Journal
    Only one comment and you bastards have killed the server. Now that I honestly can't RTFA, let me resume normal slashdot mode:

    In further news, the LSB implementation of the LCC Project will require LSD usage to be fully appreciated.

    Thanks you, thank you, I'll be silly all night. Be sure to tip your kernel hackers.
  • by Otter (3800) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:45AM (#10842340) Journal
    ...this is United Linux II, with Caldera/SCO having joined the bad guys, SuSE striking out on its own and Mandrake (the former champ) and Progeny (the cult favorite) joining the crew.

    It sounds like a pro wrestling plot! Hey, what's Darl hiding behind his back? It looks like a ... Ian, look out!

  • What LSB is (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:45AM (#10842341)
    What is the LSB Project?

    The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.

    What Does LSB Stand For?

    The acronym LSB stands for Linux Standard Base. A key goal that led to the formation of the LSB project was to try to prevent the divergence of Linux-based systems, thus a name indicating base functionality for Linux. Note that the project prefers the use of the acronym LSB over the spelled-out Linux Standard Base to reduce the misconception that this is a Linux-only standard (see next question).

    source: LSB faq [linuxbase.org]

    Was that difficult? No.
  • by a_karbon_devel_005 (733886) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:46AM (#10842351)
    The news brief says "Supported by ... Novell"... so why is SuSE Linux not included in this list?
    • Because Suse has been purchased by Novell. Didn't you know about that?
      • Yeah, I think he gets that.

        I believe his point is that Novell is listed as a backer of this, but their product (SuSE) is not listed among the linux companies that made the announcement.

        On the other hand Redhat is also listed in the same manner, so I don't think it means anything.
        • Both RH and SuSE support LSB, but I don't see them supporting other goals of this "coalition of the willing".

          For example, supporting cross-distribution binaries (DEB or RPM) would ruin the investment in Oracle certification and such stuff, so I don't see RH and SuSE rushing in anytime soon..
          • Not necessarily.

            My understanding is that Oracle only supports installations on certified platforms. If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?
            • >If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?

              That's true right now but if all the distros start standardize and support same binaries, I think Oracle won't be able to say "Oh, we only certified RHEL and SLES". If for example they support SLES and SLES is binary-compatible with Mandrake Linux, then one should be capable of installing and running Oracle 10g on Mandrake Linux in the same way it's done on SLES.
    • It also says "Supported by... RedHat". RedHat, as far as I know, is the #1 in Linux marketshare and is certainly more readily associated with Linux than Novell!
  • by leereyno (32197) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:46AM (#10842352) Homepage Journal
    Today Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux announced today that they had reached a consensus and have declared that Linux is indeed an operating system.

    In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

    • In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

      2*2*2*2*2+2*2*2+2

      OK, that's enough silliness for today.

    • Today Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux announced today that they had reached a consensus and have declared that Linux is indeed an operating system.

      Oh, but they're wrong. Linux is just the kernel.

  • by Himring (646324) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:47AM (#10842355) Homepage Journal
    The problem with Linux has always been too many cooks doing their own thing. It confuses the heck out of PHBs. Any move -- ANY -- toward standarization is only going to assist in its growth....
    • Lets be honest, the menu at McDonalds confuses PHBs. Shoelaces are worrysome to them. Learning to use toilet paper was a great achievement in their life. The reason why PHBs have their jobs is because incompetent and semi-competent boobs outnumber the competent by at least 4 to 1. The world is ruled, or at least dominated, as "ruled" implies planned and organized effort, by the clueless.

    • blah blah blah GPL blah blah if you don't like something, you can just change it blah blah blah blah we can fork the project blah blah blah the reason I like Linux is choice blah blah blah.

      Business likes this, but is there impending backlash from the OSS crowd about not jiving with the hacker ethos?
  • mandrake link (Score:5, Informative)

    by falkryn (715775) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:48AM (#10842367)
  • by ViceClown (39698) * on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:50AM (#10842380) Homepage Journal
    If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?
    • If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?

      Nope. It's just a published attempt at creating a standard. The "de facto standard" is however the majority of Linux boxes are currently configured.

      The LSB is a documented standard, but it doesn't specify a complete implementation. That's why two different distributions can be "LSB compliant" yet software designed to run on one will not run on the other.

      So, once again a few of the lesser distributio

    • The issue is that LSB needs to evolve over time. The current standard is outdated and hasn't been applied by most vendors in several years.

      LSB is absolutely critical to taking on Windows, and needed to be updated. There cannot be dozens of packages that have to be maintained by those of us writing software for Linux. This makes the user experience bad for people who aren't computer science majors and can't work configure, GNU C, etc.

      Installing a program from binaries should be the single simplest thing
    • Isn't that THE defacto standard?
      A de facto standard would be one that was not officially endorsed, but that everyone actually used. AFAICT, the LSB has always been the opposite: a standard that was officially endorsed, but that nobody actually followed.

      The LSB standard says that all applications are supposed to be statically linked, except for a very short list of highly standardized, mature, reliable libraries that can be assumed to be available for shared use. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think

  • The Reference Unix (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitalhermit (113459) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:50AM (#10842385) Homepage
    I've been a longtime SunOS/Solaris user. Recently I've been breaking AIX machines. One thing I've noticed recently is that Sun, IBM, and HP are starting to put GNU tools on their distributions. It's now common practice for a Linux compatibility layer or just ports of the regular GNU tools (including window managers, package managers, shells, etc..). This means that you can get the benefits of your underlying OS *and* have a unified and consistent interface. Though Linux may not be an *official* Unix, it is fast becoming the reference Unix.
  • Networking! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IceFox (18179) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:54AM (#10842437) Homepage
    Where is the networking setup standard? Please, please please! Why does every single distro have a different way (sometime only slightly!) of setting up networking? This causes so much pain. From porting script, helping get a friends box working, and getting the latest liveCD working with your laptop. Unlike other aspects of Linux because this is so fragmented even Google might not have the answer for your perticular distro. On top of that most everyday network setup gui tools are ONLY for one distro and you are lucky if it suports more then that one. It is a real problem for linux. Linux has fantastic networking support, but you have to re-learn how to setup your networking every time you go to a new distro. Whats up with that?

    -Benjamin Meyer
    • Re:Networking! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Donny Smith (567043)
      >Whats up with that?

      Since most of the packages are same accross all distributions, it's in no big distribution's interest (short-term interest) to be compatible with smaller distributions as that enables user mobility.

      So if you're RH you don't want to see some good X program being directly installable on SuSE - if SuSE is slightly cheaper (or god forbid free), why would users of application X stay with RH (all other factors being equal)?

      The pressure to standardize Linux to some meaningful extent will
      • Re:Networking! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mad_Rain (674268)
        Heh, not to nitpick, but:

        The pressure to standardize Linux to some meaningful extent will come from
        a) Smaller distributions (like Debian


        Debian is small? ;)

        I don't think that standardization would necessarily hurt RedHat, but provide them a door in. I'm sure there are some marketing people at RH thinking "Once you get your teeth cut on another standardized distro, and you want to move up to a better supported service for a more serious business (or whatever description gets the Pointy Haired Boss int
    • If you can't figure out how your distro handles network start up scripts,
      roll your own script using ifconfig and dhcpcd (if you use dhcp).
      ifconfig works the same on every distro I've tried.

      Nothing to it.
    • Why the hell can't they use xml and write xsd's.
      Then your problems would be over, or at least a small xslt.
  • by zerblat (785)
    The article is /.ed. Good thing it's also .\ed. [mirrordot.org]
  • Does this mean we finally have agreement on the location of the LSB? Is it on the left, or on the right?

    FYI You can't change the 1's and 0's to dots and commas because it would not be binary anymore.

  • ... because it's clear that the S in "LSB" was stolen fropm SCO (not to forget that SCO holds some IP on the idea of standardizing Linux, given that it was once member of UnitedLinux ...).
  • YAD (Score:3, Informative)

    by mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @12:20PM (#10842685) Journal
    Yeah for Yet Another Distro. Let's hype up the fact that Linux is about having a choice and then address the problem of "Linux is about having a choice". This will not make any purchase power wield MIS directors change their minds. They are either comfortable with Linux or not. If you now tell them that it doesn't matter wether you use Novell or RedHat because they are the same, people with Business knowledge will say that both companies are unsafe for long term support because neither understand the significance of PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.
    • Re:YAD (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FluffyPanda (821763)
      Same? No

      Compatible? Yes

      They'll never be the same, there'll always be a choice, they could be a little less confusing to switch between.
      • Same? No
        Compatible? Yes


        Right now the big difference is in package installs. Red Hat has RPM and others have whatever they have (I use the already compatible source installs and manuals so I am unfamiliar with those tools) I see those tools as being attractive to new sites and important. I do not see any other valuable point of standardizing. I think the "Linux" part is the same everywhere and the GNU portion should have variety. Every software distro out there got to where it is by solving specific se
  • Yes, this time, these efforts might lead to something. Does it mean that we'll have one common binary for an application for example? Or does it mean that administrators will have one certification?
  • by MarkEst1973 (769601) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @12:27PM (#10842758)
    I'm still seeing trails.

    oh, wait, LSB....

  • (null) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cyko500 (315074) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @02:14PM (#10844149)
    I've noticed some people don't seem to like the standardization effort, stating that it brings about less choice and product differentiation. "Linux is about choice" and whatnot.

    How the fuck does being able to download and install a program on any linux distro give you less choice?

    Linux NEEDS a standard way to install programs. This is a major barrier to getting the average user to use linux.

    In windows, you download an installer, double click, a screen pops up, you follow instructions. Linux needs this ease of installation.

    There are a lot of great open source apps that have come out for linux that are easily as good or better than closed source software for linux, but if people have no clue how to install and uninstall things they just WON'T use linux.

    Linux, right now, can only be manipulated by hardcore geeks. Sure someone who is spoonfed linux can run apps by themselves, but they won't be able to do anything else and will rely on their geek relation to install new things or fix problems.

    If users can easily install and uninstall programs from whatever distro, they are free to "play" more with linux. They can test out what programs they like and then use the damn stuff.

    If users can't figure out how to install some damn software they will get frustrated, and yell "FUCK OFF, DAMN YOU!!!1!!one" really loud at their monitor and proceed to use windows.

    Granted, most people don't want to play with programs. However, the easy of installation will attract a new group of people to linux. It'll attract those how know about computers, like to tinker, but don't code for a living. Those people will, in turn, attract the teeming mass of zombies.

    So yeah I guess I could sum it up with:
    standard installer = good
    standard installer != lack of choices

    Anyhow, the "ubersuperior" geeks can have fun flaming me (and my typos, I don't check these posts for typos....).
  • does this mean everybody is going to finally agree on where to install major packages like Gnome and KDE??? and that as a consequence, packages compiled on one distro such as mandrake for KDE will install on another distro such as Suse with the same "major" version of KDE? I'm tired of finding binary packages on websites compiled for say mandrake and there being no Suse version also.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly

Working...