is LFS LSB compliant?

John Gay johngay at eircom.net
Sun Oct 9 03:08:10 PDT 2005


> --- Nick Matteo <kundor at member.fsf.org> wrote:

>> Macromedia has to do no such thing.  All they have
>> to do for their code to run
>> everywhere is release their source.
>>
>> If they aren't willing to do that, there's a heck of
>> a lot more hassle to
>> install their hidden, uncheckable, unfree program,
>> which is as it should be.
>> I see no reason for us to go out of our way to make
>> it easier for others to
>> take away our freedoms.
>>
>
>
>but, 70% of people using windows will never look at
>linux, as long as they cannot use macromedia's stuff,
>adobe's stuff, even ms office.
>
70% of which people? Most home users I know don't like macromedia stuff,

Adobe provides acrobat reader for Linux, have released versions of photoshop
for linux,
and are considering moving their entire product range over to Linux, if they
find enough
users looking for it.

>personally, I won't even support flash plugins on my
>system(s) [ or any other clientside scripting ]
>you couldn't pay me enough to use adobe's photoshop or
>illistrator. with tools as powerfull as vi(m), who
>need ms office?
>
And with OpenOffice, or StarOffice so the IT Dept can spend money, who needs
tools as
obscure as vi(m)?

>I would like to see linux as a mainstream desktop os,
>just to increase the number of non ms shops around for
>jobs. :)
>but, if macromedia, adobe, autodesk don't support
>linux, then it won't get the mainstream chance.
>and if there is not a base standard followed by all
>distros, the commercial support won't happen.
>
For the die-hards, flash 'can' be made to run on Linux with minimal effort,
I mention Adobe's
products above, but I know little about Autodesk.

>Autdesk just bought Alias-Wavefront.
>give it a year, no more Maya for linux, no more Alias
>Studio tools for linux.
>
I doubt that very much. The studios using Maya and Alias tools do not and
will not use M$. Autodesk
would be slitting their own necks by removing Linux.

>leaving only softimage xsi for
>professional quality cg work for the film industry on
>linux.
>
Guess you've never heard of Houdini? Come on, a little research won't kill
you, just make you look
more informed. Also, check the credit screen for k3D, not a KDE app, BTW.
I'm sure I've seen those
initials, ILM somewhere before (-;

>yet the rendering apps by most companies work
>on linux, even autodesk supports linux as a server.
>( discreet's* combustion, and smoke are examples,
>particle flow rendering toold for 3D Studio Max, a
>windows only cg app )
>
When building plug-ins for an M$-only app, like 3D Studio Max, does it make
sense to provide Linux versions?

>* Autodesk bought discreet a couple of years ago.
>
>as much as we like our free os, and the ability to
>make it the way we want, the commercial support is
>what is needed to get linux mainstream desktop, not
>just server.
>
Yes, we do. But does LSB actually provide the proper roadmap for this? Most
think not. It's a good idea,
but Linux development is moving far too fast ATM. By the time a standard ABI
is selected and work is
started, the toolchain has moved on and you end up with a standard that's
further behind than Debian!

The different distro's aren't incompatable to try to create vender lock-in,
as you suggest, they just
happened to be developed on different versions of the tool-chain. What is
needed is a way to get that
tool-chain development synced, and then base the rest of the system on the
same tool-chain. But as long
as they develop according to their own roadmaps you will always suffer some
incampatability issues.

Cheers,

	John Gay





More information about the lfs-support mailing list