is LFS LSB compliant?

Jaqui Greenlees jaqui_greenlees at yahoo.ca
Sat Oct 8 10:40:12 PDT 2005


--- Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org>
wrote:

> Jaqui Greenlees wrote:
> >>Ken Moffat wrote:
> >>
> >>>LSB - no.  The LSB is for providers of binary
> >>>software, among other things it mandates RPM as a
> package manager,
> > 
> > really? I never saw a package manager requirement
> in
> > it.
> 
>
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html
> 


ahh, that's from version 3, which I hadn't read.

> >>>version of the LSB, but most people don't think
> >>>that is worthwhile.
> >>
> > only because most people don't think standardising
> the
> > core is a good idea, they want to break
> comatability
> > between distros. just to follow in ms' footsteps
> and
> > lock customers into using thier branded versions
> 
> But when one has the source available to the package
> you require, the 
> value of binary compatibility significantly
> decreases, IMO.  If your 
> distro doesn't have a package available in binary
> form, one just grabs 
> the source and compiles it (or asks someone else
> to).  The point is, 
> you're not at the mercy of your OS vendor or anyone
> else - you're *free* 
> to achieve pretty much whatever you want to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Matt.

actually, I would say that by not adopting a base
standard, for both structure and libs, what it hurts
is getting major software vendors to support linux.

like get macromedia's desktop tools on linux, when
they have to custom code for every distro. ain't gonna
happen.

get autodesk to add support for linux with autocad, 3d
studio max, gmax ... and to not kill maya for linux
now that they have bought alias out.

this lack of support from the big name companies slows
down linux acceptance as a desktop system

with lfs being the core of a linux system, only the
bare minimum to have a functioning system, lsb
compliance isn't going to happen. blfs may be where
lsb could be discussed, so that individuals can decide
if they do want to make thier own system compliant.
the blfs book, not just on lists. ;)

my own major issue with lsb is vi(m) as default text
editor. has to be the worst idea they had. the moded
word processing power is not a basic editor to
require.

using a modeless editor, with far less capabilities (
and far simpler usage ) as the required editor would
be better. the majority of people using linux for the
first time, are going to be going runlevel 5, and
never see console unless there is a problem with
xfree86 / xorg. remember the first time you ran vi(m)
in console? bet it took a while to figure out how to
use it. if you are a gui only person, you'll be to
freaked at console to be willing to spend an hour
reading vi(m) manual to figure out how to edit a file
with it, you'll be grabbing your windows installation
cd as soon as you can't just start typing the
correction into a file.

( my own opinion about vi(m), and the attitude is what
most windows users have about console. )

Jaqui


	

	
		
__________________________________________________________ 
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca



More information about the lfs-support mailing list