Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation

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."

Re:LSB?

[CrankyFool]

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]

Linux problem is....

[Himring]

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....

Re:Finally

[joestar]

Xandros and Lindows are "big players" losing much much money. So much that Lindows had to cancel their IPO at the last minute because they didn't reach their investment target. That's not what I call big players. At least, Mandrakesoft, Conectiva and Turbolinux are well-known and profitable companies.

Isn't that why we have an LSB

[ViceClown]

If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?

Re:LSB?

[tlhIngan]

You jest, but there are architectures that have their bits numbered the *other* way around (where bit 0 is the most significant bit, while bit n (n=15, 31, etc) is the least significant bit).

Causes more than mild confusion for the hardware designers who have to suddenly deal with A0..A29 (or A30, A31 on 32-bit systems, depending on the external bus), and likewise with D0..D31. More than once have they been wired baskwards (or the byte enables, as well). Heck, it's a great way to get software developers confused as well...

(If you really must know, it appears PowerPC is numbered this way).

Networking!

[IceFox]

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

Huh?

[Skeezix]

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...

Re:LSB?

[AvantLegion]

>> 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".

Re:YAD

[FluffyPanda]

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.

Re:LSB?

[maxwell demon]

More importantly, it's a Karma generator: It gives you the possibility to get a cheap +1 Informative.

Re:LSB?

[Ithika]

Yeah, news for nerds. Possibly the kind of nerds that could handle HTML's abbbr tag to explain in an unobtrusive fashion what this particular LSB stands for. Especially as the side they link to is currently a melted pile of slag.

Re:Finally

[bfields]

Deb won't. LSB is RPM based.

Try apt-get install rpm sometime....

Also, you might want to take a look at alien. A Debian box can deal with suitable RPM's. And isn't one of the participating distributions listed in the submission debian-based? (Progeny?)

--Bruce Fields

(null)

[cyko500]

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....).

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB

[bcrowell]

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 there's a single significant distro that actually does this.

Now there may be very good reasons why static linking has never been widely accepted on Linux (I think it's because although it would make things more convenient for the end user, it would be less convenient for the applications programmer), but regardless of its merits, the LSB has really just been ignored.

Re:Networking!

[Mad_Rain]

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 interested), why not move over to Red Hat?"

Then all they have to do is provide a service that can distinguish themselves from other vendors, and they're good. (Of course, that's always the hard part).

Thank God

[LANjackal]

As someone who works with Linux, Solaris, Win 2000/XP and Mac OS computers, I can testify that while Linux is a joy to do run intensive calculations on, the user experience simply blows. If these companies can work that out, it would be great.