Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation 245
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."
LSB? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:LSB? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I do now -- Linux Standard Base. See this link [linuxbase.org]
Re:LSB? (Score:2, Funny)
Simple solution (Score:2, Funny)
Just [reference.com] use [reference.com] links [reference.com] everywhere [reference.com]
Re:LSB? (Score:2)
Slashdot, however, doesn't support it in comments.
Re:LSB? (Score:5, Funny)
actually... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
And, is it Little Endian (Score:3, Funny)
Re:LSB? (Score:2)
Currently they are arguing about the best implementation of the next significant bit.
Re:LSB? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:LSB? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:LSB? (Score:2)
+1 Insightful!
Re:LSB? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real meaning of LSB (Score:3, Funny)
Re:LSB? (Score:2)
Re: How about a 16bit char (Score:2)
Caused some confusion when doing 8 bit serial communications I can tell you.
Neil
Re:LSB? (Score:4, Informative)
(If you really must know, it appears PowerPC is numbered this way).
That's simply not true. What you are referring to is called "endianess", which is the way the bytes are arranged in 16 or more bit words. There are two possible ways to store the bytes of a 16 bit word: least significant byte first (called little endian), and most significant byte first (called big endian).
The bits in a byte are always numbered from 0 to 7, with 0 being the least significant and 7 being the most significant bit.
Also, bits on physical lines (like address or data busses) are always numbered sequentially, and it therefore impossible to wire things up backwards because of endianness (it is, however, still possible with pure stupidity).
Endianness can be a problem, however, in computer networks; for example when transmitting a 32 bit word from an Intel machine to a PowerPC. The two machines differ in endianess (the Intel being little endian and the PowerPC being big endian), which means the byteorder is different, which can lead to incorrect values for the word after transmission, if the programmers don't take care to convert every word to network endianess before transmitting and from network to machine endianess after receiving.
For more information: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~verts/cs32/endian.html [umass.edu]
Re:LSB? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:LSB? (Score:2)
Endian-ness and bit ordering are not related. Endian-ness only applies to how bytes are stored in a multibyte value.
MSB MSB-1 ... LSB+1 LSB is big endian.
LSB LSB+1 ... MSB-1 MSB is litle endian.
For bit ordering within a byte (left to right): ... 2^0=bit 0
2^n where n is the bit number is the 'normal' way
2^7=bit 7 2^6=bit 6
2^(n - 7) is the backward way ... 2^0=bit 7
2^7=bit 0 2^6=bit 1
This is good news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is good news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really is amazing (Score:4, Funny)
Its kind of like Voltron for crap.
Article Short on details (Score:5, Interesting)
Will this include glibc standardization?
Re:Article Short on details (Score:2)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1728412,00
for a bit more.
As for glibc standardization, no that wouldn't be part of it.
Steven
rpm vs. deb (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It doesn't. Anyone who has actually read the LSB already knows that LSB specifies RPM as the official, common, package manager.
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
I dare you.
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:3, Informative)
But, deb's dependency management is a little finer grained. And aptitude is a great tool.
So, if I could get my familiar rpm and yum commandlines, aptitude, and deb dependencies I guess it'd be the best of both worlds for me.
One huge problem for rpm-based distroes is of course that each of them has different packages and dependency trees. Ever tried using five yum repositories and hoping they just somehow man
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
Conectiva, one of the four vendors listed in the agreement, supports rpm under apt. I have used it for three years now, apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade, and all your rpm packages are updated. Runs synaptic too, which is a great way to find which packages you need for a given system.
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
Also, for some reason I don't like apt-get or apt-cache.. aptitude is pretty much the only apt-based management tool I really like.
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
Secondly, it shouldn't be that hard for portage or apt to be upgraded to provide single-user installs (I can imagine just using an if statement: if user=="root" then base_directory="/"; else base_directory="~/")
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
Yeah, but not everything that someone might want to use on Linux is free software. Few commercial software shops are would put all their proprietary packages into your OneTrueGlobalPackageSystem.
Re:rpm vs. deb (Score:2)
1) Over-specific dependencies not liking package version 1.x of the project even though version 1.y does the job just fine, thankyou, and it might be a pain to run both package 1.x and 1.y on the same system.
2) The simple usability failure that they don't automatically fetch the dependancy packages for you or
More information about the LCC... (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting to notice the differences with UnitedLinux. LCC is not to push one Linux Standard, but to push the Linux standard (LSB).
Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in pieces (Score:5, Funny)
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.
In other words... (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like a pro wrestling plot! Hey, what's Darl hiding behind his back? It looks like a ... Ian, look out!
Re:In other words... (Score:2)
No, no, no! (Score:3, Funny)
Get it right or pay the price!
Re:In other words... (Score:2)
In regards to SuSE, I'd point out the summary includes Novell (SuSE's owner) as already backing the LCC.
What LSB is (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What LSB is (Score:2)
I tend to use it over /usr/local.
Problem with installing from source to /usr/local is that, unlike, /opt, a simple rm -rf will have some undesireable consequences when you go to uninstall it.
Re:What LSB is (Score:2)
Supported by Novell?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Supported by Novell?? (Score:2)
Re:Supported by Novell?? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Supported by Novell?? (Score:2)
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..
Re:Supported by Novell?? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Supported by Novell?? (Score:2)
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.
What's with the filtered vision?! (Score:2)
In related news..... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:In related news..... (Score:2)
2*2*2*2*2+2*2*2+2
OK, that's enough silliness for today.
Re:In related news..... (Score:2)
Oh, but they're wrong. Linux is just the kernel.
Linux problem is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux problem is.... (Score:2, Redundant)
Yeah, but it's what Linux is all about! (Score:2)
Business likes this, but is there impending backlash from the OSS crowd about not jiving with the hacker ethos?
mandrake link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/press/briefs?
and here:
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/lcc/faq [mandrakesoft.com]
Isn't that why we have an LSB (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of "yes", but mostly "no". (Score:2)
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
Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:The Reference Unix (Score:2)
Re:The Reference Unix (Score:5, Informative)
sed, awk, tar
Depending on what you're looking for you (ie. if you like a lot of the GNU convenience features) can include
ls (no, really, no colors, and lacking all manner of other sugary features)
grep (the raw Solaris grep is surprisngly slow compared to GNU grep, not to mentiona lack of options)
diff (go on, try diff --help, again, all the nice options are missing)
and as you say, many many more. That's some pretty basic stuff that, while not "broken", feels broken when you're used to the GNU versions.
Oh, and killall. killall is always fun on Solaris...
Jedidiah.
Re:The Reference Unix (Score:2, Funny)
Networking! (Score:5, Insightful)
-Benjamin Meyer
Re:Networking! (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:Networking! (Score:2)
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.
XML (Score:2)
Then your problems would be over, or at least a small xslt.
Mirror (Score:2)
Agree on LSB? (Score:2)
FYI You can't change the 1's and 0's to dots and commas because it would not be binary anymore.
Expect the next SCO lawsuite ... (Score:2)
YAD (Score:3, Informative)
Re:YAD (Score:3, Insightful)
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:YAD (Score:2)
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
This might work (Score:2)
I did some of this stuff in the '60s (Score:4, Funny)
oh, wait, LSB....
(null) (Score:3, Insightful)
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....).
Yippee!!! (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Creativity (Score:2)
Re:Creativity (Score:2)
Yes, but ... (Score:2)
standard for their code base? It
can't be an acceptable standard until
ALL the major linux players embrace it.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Yes, it is very annoying that a (commercial) Linux distribution typically has a very messy filesystem layout.
In this the OpenBSD (and the other *BSD as well) does much better. When you install a port, you know where it is installed. The man hier [openbsd.org] is actually followed and useful. Packages/ports installs to /usr/local,
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
i think there should be a abstraction of paths and config files so you can create a binary installer that works on every distribution but where the files really go to is depending on the distribution
this wold make it possible to log into a suse machine, start a special shell and see all config file like they would be on a debian machine at least from the location viewpoint
Try again, thanks for playing (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the Debian developers track the standards almost religiously, and have for a long time. Filesystem Hierarchy Standard and LSB support have been part of Debian for a long time now. That's why I personally use Debian. It is a completely free, relatively easy to use and administer (once you are past the initial learning curve), standards compliant distro with almost every open-source/free package out there already packaged for installation from the Debian distro mirrors.
Re:Try again, thanks for playing (Score:2)
Re:Try again, thanks for playing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Try again, thanks for playing (Score:3, Informative)
So, software packed for debian (.debs) can't be installed elsewhere (AFAIK), but software packaged for LSB (rpms) can be installed on debian.
Re:Try again, thanks for playing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Informative)
When an incorrect post gets modded up, that's a sign that the misconception held by the poster is a commonly held one. Modding it up has the effect of bringing it to people's attention and making it more likely that a correction will be posted and modded up.
So, while I sometimes do wish there was an "incorrect" mod (or sometimes maybe "insufficient supporting evidence provided..."), I'm not sure that
You are confused (Score:2)
Integrating optional RPM support into your distro's native package manager is not hard. [kitenet.net]
Re:I thought Linus did this (Score:2)