Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Linux Standard Base 1.1 162

Staili writes: "Zdnet is reporting that The Free Standards Group released version 1.1 of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) as well as the first version of the Linux Internationalization Initiative standard to deal with Linux language barriers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Standard Base 1.1

Comments Filter:
  • would be great (Score:2, Insightful)

    by aoty ( 533561 ) <aoty@[ ] ['yah' in gap]> on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:11AM (#2936881)
    The LSB is, in my opinion, crucial for the adoption of linux by the average Joe. But who actually follows the LSB? We can create system guidelines all we want, but until they are widely followed, they aren't "standards."
  • Package format (Score:5, Insightful)

    by d-rock ( 113041 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:20AM (#2936935) Homepage
    How much does standardizing on RPM as the package format affect systems like Debian? From my understanding the whole apt (.deb) system has a lot of nice features that RPM doesn't... Not that it's a bad thing, I just wonder how much debate went into this particular aspect.

  • by phoenix_orb ( 469019 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:21AM (#2936942)
    I mean, honestly, don't we already have POSIX? Isn't this what this is really all about? i.e getting a standard out that all unixes can use, with the reliability and scalability to boot?

    I believe that linux has partial POSIX compatiblity, but if the kernal was 100% compatible, would we have this "group" of large companies wanting to add features to "ensure" compatibility?


    POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is a set of standard operating system interfaces based on the UNIX operating system. The need for standardization arose because enterprises using computers wanted to be able to develop programs that could be moved among different manufacturer's computer systems without having to be recoded. UNIX was selected as the basis for a standard
    system interface partly because it was "manufacturer-neutral." However, several major versions of UNIX existed so there was a need to develop a common denominator system.

    Informally, each standard in the POSIX set is defined by a decimal following the POSIX. Thus, POSIX.1 is the standard for an application program interface in the C language. POSIX.2 is the standard shell and utility interface (that is to say, the user's command interface with the operating system). These are the main two interfaces, but additional interfaces, such as POSIX.4 for thread management, have been developed or are being developed. The POSIX interfaces were developed under the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).


    So basically, we have a standard, not just for Linux, but for all *NIX's (BSD, IRIX, Solaris, etc) And this geat consortum wants to make a new standard. Hmm, I hope it doesn't break the thousands of programs already out there. I mean, I could live with a re-compile for quite a bit, but this Linux consortum is honestly going to have to come up with something pretty convincing to show me that this compatibility is not going to be broken.

    From the Linux Base website:

    A lot has been said of late regarding the possibility that Linux will fragment into incompatible versions. Some of the speculation has been well reasoned, some not.

    The least credible argument has been that Linux will fragment because UNIX did. This completely ignores the market dynamics that caused UNIX to fragment, and
    consequently why these dynamics do not apply to Linux. UNIX was a means to an end, and the end was to sell unique hardware solutions. Linux is the means to a
    completely different end - a free (as in free speech), reliable, scalable open source solution. Linux is, in a sense, an end unto itself.


    Ok, I can get that, but UNIX (as long as it was POSIX compatible) never split up to the point that it was completely unusable across platforms(and I am talking about CLI, not window managers)
  • by dybdahl ( 80720 ) <info&dybdahl,dk> on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:26AM (#2936972) Homepage Journal
    A Linux distribution can consist of 90% software not covered by the LSB. Therefore, it makes no sense to discuss "administering an LSB system".

    LSB is about minimum requirements for a distribution in order to make distributions more compatible, i.e. it's about deployment. If you distribution is LSB 1.1 compliant, then you should be able to install all software that only requires LSB 1.1. compliance. For a start, this will not cover ordinary GUI software.

    In order to create a long-lasting standard, you cannot cover issues that are constantly changing or under development, so don't expect LSB to cover a whole distribution anytime soon. But LSB is an important step to make sure that distributions don't fork into something incompatible.
  • by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:46AM (#2937062) Homepage
    here is the most credible argument.....

    we want computer stores to start to carry software for Linux, with out the LSB, we will not see this or will see things such as, "made for RedHat x.y"

    that is why the LSB is needed, so _consumer_ application makers will make software for Linux.
  • by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <> on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:51AM (#2937080)
    ANYONE start using it! Preferably everyone.

    Some people will say well what does this does to debian/apt. I say nothing. Apt is not dependant on using deb as evidenced by apt-rpm. Debian can adapt the Connectiva apt-rpm package and switch to rpm's rather easily (unless they are too pig headed). Also, does LSB compliance not allow you to use other packages as well as accepting RPM's?? That way debian can stick to debs for the short term, and switch to RPM's in the long term. Then at some point in the future, LSB can change the spec and require RPM only.

    I would also like to see apt or some advanced package manager included in the spec as well. Apt kicks major booty and takes away the dependency hunt.
  • Mandrake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ( 450073 ) <xanadu@[ ] ['ino' in gap]> on Friday February 01, 2002 @11:06AM (#2937178) Homepage Journal
    I almost hate to do this but, I think Mandrake REALLY needs to start reading this and taking it into account. I've been using MDK for a few years now and I do really like the distro. Hell, infact, I'm burring the 8.2 beta2 [] right now. *BUT* one thing that makes me REALLY hate what they do is all this -mdk crap. Even something simply like the Kicker Menu icons are all stored in -mdk locations so no source that you use will get the icons right without you making symlins all over the place. And even when you DO make all the symlinks and copy stuff to MDK's locations, next time you install something, their RPM's will run "update-menus" and "fix" all their locations to their liking. THAT makes me not too happy.

    For instance Mosfet's Liquid theme []. He has a kcontrol module that he uses to control his theme. You can't have it on MDK if you don't copy his module to (something like, I forget): /usrshare/applnk-mdk-simplified/.hidden/Configurat ion. Not the two big problems there. First eh mkd specifck location and then a HIDDEN dir on top of that.

    It's this sort of thing that (my understand is) the LSB is supposed to help "prevent". I wish MDK would follow it. I think it would REALLY help the newbies if they did.
  • by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @11:14AM (#2937218)
    "Some people will say well what does this does to debian/apt. I say nothing. Apt is not dependant on using deb as evidenced by apt-rpm. Debian can adapt the Connectiva apt-rpm package and switch to rpm's rather easily (unless they are too pig headed)."

    They don't _need_ to switch to RPMs. I've earlier argued that there is no point in switching from RPM to Deb-packages, but the reverse is equally true.

    All they need to do is make sure "alien" works as it should, and let Debian-users install lsb-based RPM-packages easily. Internally they can and should keep using debs. Debs is what they can, debs is what they do, and switching to RPMs will earn them nothing except a lot of work. Besides I'm willing to bet that at least some of their volunteers would leave the Debian project if someone forced this change.

    In addition Debian should make sure that their debs are easily converted into lsb-rpms.

    I _really_ want to see software distributors start to offer packages looking like this: gnome-core-2.0.386.lsb.rpm

    .. instead of .mdk.rpm, SuSE-rpms, Red Hat-rpms, Connectiva-rpms.. etc..
  • by joestar ( 225875 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @11:19AM (#2937251) Homepage
    To notice that Mandrake, which is the most internationalized Linux distribution in the world [], is not part of the li18nux initiative.
    Also strange to notice that the logo used at li18nux website ressembles much to the one used for years at Mandrake's i18n main page! Anybody knows why Mdk is not part of the li18nux initiative?
  • by Diabolical ( 2110 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @11:26AM (#2937295) Homepage
    The LSB tries to standardize something completely different then POSIX does. It tries to standardize the minmum aspect that a distro must have to be compatible with others. Like mentioned in an earlier post, try to install a SuSE RPM on a RedHat system to see what the LSB means and tries to standardize.

    POSIX is more on a programmers level where LSB and the FHS are more on the disk layout and library standardization.

    For example: If i have a program for Linux it needs to use some libraries. There are different kind of these with every distro.. which library to include/use.. What is the disk layout? Do i install my package in /opt or in /usr/whatever. These problems are difficult to tackle when you write a linux program. If FSB and FHS are widely used and are really a standard one wouldn't have to worry about these trivial things..
  • by Pussy Is Money ( 527357 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @11:37AM (#2937357) Homepage Journal
    Without actually having read the LSB, I would figure it addresses things like whether it is /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d/init.d, or whether it is glibc 2.1 or glibc 2.2, or whether bash or csh is the standard shell, whether /sbin is part of your PATH or not, or whether /opt is optional or not, or whether perl lives in /usr/bin/perl or /usr/local/bin/perl or someplace else again.

    POSIX is not a standard in the sense that LSB is a standard. Even Windows NT can claim some degree of "POSIX compatibility", which should tell you something.

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.