On November 17, 2004 18:12, Kevin Anderson wrote: > As they should be. Too bad Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc don't agree. Again and > again, Linux is the word used where Red Hat is the what they really mean. > Which makes it unsuitable for a corporate install. Every time I've > purchased a big app, RH was requested as the OS. Red Hat isn't Linux, but > nobody seems to know that except in the technical realm.
this is why most everyone in the Linux distro and Linux ISV space is pushing for the LSB to come to fruition. C++ is still screwed up in LSB 2.0, but it's getting there (like a tortoise, but it's becoming a fast tortoise). as the LSB covers more bases and non-Red Hat distros gain more market clout, the LSB is becoming more and more important to ISVs. it's telling that things like Linux accessibility standards are being formed within the LSB's parent group, the FSG, and not elsewhere. -- Aaron J. Seigo Society is Geometric
pgpLc6fKlDyQc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
