Why Aren't More Distros Becoming LSB Certified? 651
mydoghasworms asks: "I have done much thinking lately about Linux Standards Base. The idea makes lots of sense: Adopt a standard which will ensure that if some piece of software is compiled on one LSB-compliant system, it will run on any other LSB-compliant system.
This would be great for members of the general public who are looking for an alternative to Windows, don't want to pay for Mac, but are looking for a platform where installing and running software is as easy as on the platform they are used to. Seen in that light, if LSB lives up to its promise, it could be the step in Linux's evolution that could see it adopted by the general public. That leaves the question: Why is LSB not seeing greater adoption?"
"Is it because it is not marketed well enough? Is the certification process too difficult? Are there perhaps technical challenges to LSB certification not often discussed? If people agree that LSB is in fact what Linux needs right now to ensure widespread adoption, what should be done to create awareness of LSB? Should communities developing Open Source/Free Software projects be encouraged to provide LSB binaries? Your input would be most welcome here."
Why Standarize when you can improve (Score:5, Interesting)
this is easy to answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that many linux distros are pretending to be enterprise-ready w/o enterprise sales or revenue would indicate that they are unable, uncapable, or unwilling to be certified. Basically they can't afford it.
Of course I am speaking in general terms about linux distributions and the industry in general, there are numerous examples which can be used to refute my generalisations. However I think there's ALOT of consolidation required in the Linux world yet to achieve some of the more lofty goals of open source.
LSB Compliance (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was once playing UT04, and all of a sudden the hard-drive went crazy, the frame-rate dropped and I rolled my eyes - obviously Linux was misbehaving again. It subsided after a minute or so (I kept on kicking ass the whole time, by the way, as I am hardcore :)) and a while later I quit. I then had a brainwave, and checked through the "Office" section of the K-menu - sure enough, OO.o was there. Turns out, I'd done an urpmi openoffice a while before playing UT, left it downloading, forgot about it completely, and the hard-drive thrashing while I played was the download completing and the installation taking place. I'd installed an entire fucking Office Suite without even lifting a finger. Cool stuff :)
Of course, if you want something that is not in your repository, then prepare for the worst pain ever or go without. It would be nice if some measure existed to ease the burden on packagers, as it seems that keeping them up to date is a tedious and thankless task.
Re:Reality check... Bounced. (Score:5, Interesting)
Red Hat & Suse have enough of a lead, that all they get by agreeing to LSB is to create a more level playing field for the dwarves. The dwarves may join, but in the absence of one of the major players also joining, this in and of istelf will not be sufficient to push the dwarves into widespread commercial acceptance.
Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Linux needs a standard container (Score:5, Interesting)
For printing, my home desktop needs new (and uncertified) drivers from Brother. My brother's computer can't share the printer hooked up to my sister's computer and I've spent a couple of hours trying to figure out why. All the sharing _seems_ to be set up correctly, it just doesn't share.
And at work, I had to write up a document showing how to remap drives when my coworkers plug in removable drives to their systems. Windows kept on assigning drive letters that were already in use. Why on earth do we still use drive letters, anyway?
NONE of these things are things I would expect average users to be able to do. Linux certainly has plenty of problems, but so does Windows.
Re:Linux needs a standard container (Score:3, Interesting)
And even if that pisses those mid-level users, that is *just* fine if you intend to have an actual work done.
Why no lsb adoption? two reasons spring to mind (Score:4, Interesting)
1) A standard has been arrived at already already- it is known as POSIX (http://www.knosof.co.uk/posix.html)
2) Linux Standard Base is yet another self appointed 'governing body' comprised of corporate 'industry leaders'. In other words, LSB hsa nothing to do with those who have made linux great, and therefore their 'ideas' will continue to be met with indifference.
Re:Reality check... Bounced. Mod parent as Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
I have zero problems with commerical software.
I'm saying that the commercial linux market is "owned" by 2 players who have no motivation to level the playing field for competitors.
Are customers clamoring for open standards? No. If they were, RH & Novell would be scurrying to become compliant.
I do not work for MSFT nor am I an "elitist snob".
I am far beyond worrying about being seen as cool by the linux community or anybody else, than you.
Read your history. Look at what happened in the past when various consortiums tried to standardize UNIX, standize the UI, etc... Do you think that just because we're talking about companies that make Linux instead of UNIX that they will magically stop behaving like ongoing commercial concerns?
Re:this is easy to answer (Score:2, Interesting)
The "Joe Schmoe" distros (Slack, DSL, Knoppix, LFS) would not do it and that's fine, they would continue to be used by a lot of people anyway.
Debian would be a problem of course since so many other distros are based on them, and they don't have a lot of money. But maybe Ubuntu could pay their way through?
It looks more to me like the big boys can't be bothered to do it, but not because they can't afford it. Maybe it's a time and resources thing, or maybe LSB is not quite where they want it to be.
Re:They tried this already (Score:5, Interesting)
The Linux server world and ESPECIALLY the desktop world are falling into the same trap. Multiple vendors solving the same problem different ways. It is becoming more and more obvious that standardization is next big test of Linux. Linux will NEVER grow out of it's niche if vendors and developers don't start participating in standards.
Copy/Paste Much? ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
by esconsult1 (203878) on Wednesday April 20, @01:07PM
I know this is a rant, but my shop recently switched back to Windows from Linux desktops (about 40 people), why? Because the new CEO (and me too), were sick and tired of people trying to get things to work together properly. We were sick of not having an Exchange replacement (don't get me started on the open source ones now "available"). And new hires and our clients were just plain used to using the dominant containers out there (windows/mac).
by esconsult1 (203878) * on Wednesday April 20, @07:23AM
I know this is a rant, but my shop recently switched back to Windows from Linux desktops (about 40 people), why? Because the new CEO (and me too), were sick and tired of people trying to get things to work together properly. We were sick of not having an Exchange replacement (don't get me started on the open source once now "available"). And new hires and our clients were just plain used to using the dominant containers out there (windows/mac).
Re:Linux needs a standard container (Score:3, Interesting)
OSS (I refrain from using the term "linux" since it is just a small part of a desktop) has a HUGE thing going for it right now: a complete lack of market penetration.
While Windows has all of this cruft for the sake of backward compatibility, OSS has next to none. This means that OSS can take all of what is wrong with Windows and do it properly. The people who pull the strings NEED to sit down and get things right BEFORE critical mass happens. At that point, there's no turning back.
As it sits, if you broke compatibility with 100 percent of the OSS/KDE/Gnome/etc apps out there, you'd technically only be breaking just a percent or two of the installed base. This is completely worth it.
My wish list:
1) OSS will need a registry. It doesn't need to have the shortcomings of the Windows registry. Don't be so afraid.
2) User data/system data separation - right now, users can save data all over the place. I've seen a user put their Word docs in 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office' because that seemed intuitive. While I realize that there are provisions in OSS to prevent this, none of it is intuitive. The desktop environment should not even present this extra layer of confusion. I've also seen users install applications to the Windows desktop because they wanted to have a shortcut to the program there. All of these stupid choices should be removed from the decision tree. Someone in UI design needs to work on a help desk for a couple hours.
3) "Packaged" configuration - if I get a new PC, there is no real good way to transfer settings or applications. Data is not so difficult if you don't fall into the problem listed above. It would be nice if we could just transfer apps and settings by simply transferring a couple "packages". I realize that this affects #1.
4) Reduced complexity - there is no reason that an install CD should have 12,000 files on it. These should be packaged into a single logical file that is automagically recognized by the system. Additionally, users should not have to deal with
5) Predefined user interface - OSS can be customized up the ying yang. This is good. It is also bad. But it comes with a free frogurt. The frogurt is also cursed. Press CTRL+ALT+DEL and then set the user interface to 'beginner' and everything reverts back to old familiar. When your finished, move it back to 'custom' or one of the other predefined states (i.e. - 'intermediate').
6) Remove all non-Joe User stuff from the usermode GUI. Joe User does not need to get intimate details on the north bridge in his system. If someone of a technical nature wants to, then they should have to hit a preset key combo (everyone knows CTRL+ALT+DEL at this point so it should be used) to pull up the admin panel. This panel should be consistent. Come up with some standards.
7) Use the desktop for something other than clutter. Be creative.
8) Create standards for software. The aforementioned
5:00... time to go home... the moral of the story is that I could go on all day about what is wrong with what we've got now. That is quite the Achilles Heel for Microsoft.
xxx-config --path (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a thought...
why can't they all get along? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Linux needs a standard container (Score:2, Interesting)
I use linux and I would love to see it standardize a bit with average programs in
Standardization is your friend, but please never bring windows up in the same topic as "standard"
I'll tell you why... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm really disappointed with this discussion. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a couple of posts that get part of the answer to the question being asked and none of them has been moderated to higher than a 3 (and that one was somewhat off topic).
A few years back, I tried to do something similar to what a part of what LSB attempts to do, and it was like pulling teeth to get anyone to even talk about it. The initive was called FABIO, for "Free Application Binary Interface Objective". The intent was to get all the x86 Linux and BSD distributions to sync up with a single ABI, hopefully derived from a commercial ABI - the front-runner at the time, by far, was Solaris.
Nobody would do it, and it's for the same reasons that FABIO was stillborn, and the LSB is significantly more far-reaching than FABIO ever was:
1) Loss of editorial control
This is a big one for some projects. What if the LSB suddenly includes a library with a license that Debian can't live with, for example? What if I'm building an enterprise version of Linux, and I don't *want* to include graphics drivers that are part of the LSB 3.x specification? This is much less about what to put where as it is about what to include or not include in a distribution, and the acceptable per-distribution licensing policies and practices. The LSB throws in the kitchen sink.
2) Commoditization
If everyone conforms to a standard, what differentiates one product from another? This was touched on in that other posting. So far, no one has used the phrase "UNIX Wars", so I will. The UNIX Wars were about product differentiation. The other posting suggested that this was a result of market forces toward stratification, where different products rise up to meet different sets of needs. This is incorrect. FABIO only intended to standardize ABI - far less than the ambitious LSB. Further, it wanted to pick an existing commercial UNIX to standardize against, and finally, it wanted to define two levels of compliance. In the lowest level, you would be guaranteed that the standardized APIs were present. In the highest leve, you were able to turn off all APIs which were not standard: a guarantee that you could write code without unwittingly using a vendor extension, making the resulting binary non-portable. A mass exodus of developers to level 1 compliant platforms (to obtain the largest possible market) was expected... *if* FABIO made it. Neither the Linux nor the BSD camps bought into the idea: it would have rendered them commodities, differentiated only by philosophy and license. This is the same thing that drove the UNIX Wars: "I can't/won't compete against Microsoft, so I'll drive this other UNIX vendor out of business and take his market instead".
3) It's too big to be meaningful in any real sense
The LSB is too big to implement everything, and if you don't implement everything, you aren't LSB compliant. Face it, it's a superset of POSIX, and there's not one Linux yet that can claim full POSIX conformance for their system, let alone add in the other parts of the specification to get to LSB conformance. It's too damn big, and you can't turn off those things that are optional (you can barely do this with POSIX, using unistd.h, and if you do that with too many things, your system is useless anyway:. There's no agreed upon mandatory subset that lets you turn off the non-mandatory parts, and not get them at all, and know that all other mandatory compliance is there. POSIX has this problem in spades; the unistd.h mechanism is really poor at letting you pick interfaces to *NOT* be there: you can't. You also can't know, without a lot of research, what things are mandatory for conformance with standards built on top of POSIX - this is left as an exercise for the developer, who can say "if this interface is there, use it", but can't go anywhere and ask "what interfaces can I safely use, always, as long as a platform is conformant with standard XXX?". The LSB does a worse job: it includes POSIX, and then adds things on top of
LSB and "Linux" (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems like "LSB" is one of the more outrageous cases of using the word "Linux" to describe GNU or Unix things entirely outside the kernel. So this is not a case where "GNU/Linux" would be a better name -it's a case where just "GNU" would be a better name!
LSB in effect says nothing whatsoever about your kernel, it is all about binary compatibility though user-space linking policies, library versions, and executable format - not your kernel. And guess what - in a GNU/Linux system those things come entirely from GNU parts and the ELF standard.
Re:Reality check... Bounced. (Score:3, Interesting)
>Why not ask your distribution to get LSB-certified instead?
Maybe because LSB calls for RPMs, and that doesn't fit the Debian/Knoppix/Ubuntu/DSL/et cetera way of doing things?
Maybe if LSB hadn't mandated rpms they'd be getting some grass-roots support from distributions like Gentoo, and Debian and its derivitives. As it is, they look a bit like a Redhat/Suse shill.
RPM is for third-party applications (Score:3, Interesting)
All an LSB-compliant OS needs to do is to make a way to install these foreign, third-party application packages. Debian uses the software "alien" for this, for instance.
Re:They tried this already (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine that you work in development for Vendor X producing Vendor X Linux. You have a marketing department and some managers over you, all hungry for targets and bonuses.
As a developer, you have spent the last three months bringing the product in line with LSB for the alpha test. Now, as you detail your changes in a meeting, both marketing and management jump on you:
"Wait, you mean our Vendor X Linux is now the same as Vendor Y Linux and Vendor Z Linux?"
"NO!" You answer, almost in a huff. "It just shares a fundamental compatibility with them. A common set of file locations, libraries, etc., so that customers know that what runs on Vendor X Linux will also run on Y Linux and Z Linux."
"So what you're saying," the manager responds, "Is that you're doing your best to lower barriers to out-migration among our existing customer base, while at the same time creating just the sort of backward-compatibility headache that is most likely to encourage it?"
"Plus," the marketing person adds, "you're diluting the brand! We have a strong brand and are proud of the value adds that our differences from other distributions represent. If we're LSB and Y is LSB and Z is LSB, we're really saying to the customer that we're the same as they are. We don't want to be the same. We want to be better. We have a strong brand and we shouldn't be afraid to use it! We want to be the standard; we want to make sure that Y and Z match us. We certainly don't want to go around saying that we're doing our best to match them."
Next thing you know, you're walking out of that meeting with instructions to roll back the changes you've just spent the last few months making, to ensure that the product is NOT LSB-ready.
Re:Linux needs a standard container (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with the above post; if the Linux community wants to get desktops into enterprises, then it has to start beating the incumbant not just on software/security but on how it functions as a whole system - giving the people what it wants. I've liked Linux for about 7 years as I just couldn't afford Windows at the time, but sometimes I can't shake this doubt that too many in the Linux community like it being 'the underdog' because it makes them feel special.