Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
>
> : On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
> :
> : > I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
> : > user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
> : > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
> : > when I decided to switch my home OS silly me took a few hours and read
> : > about various OSs.
> :
> : Missing the point again as all seem to be in this discussion. I think I
> : have seen maybe one post that "got" the point.
>
> Perhaps not everyone agrees with you?
>
> : Debian can be a really great technical OS but if I can not install a
> : particular commercial application and the vendor says "We do not support
> : Debian because they are non-standard" then debian goes out the door if
> : the project depends on the application.
>
> In what ways is Debian non-standard? We have the FSSTND, and soon FHS.
> Any vendor can install into /usr/local (and soon /opt) on a Debian
> system with the guarantee that we won't munge their stuff! How many
> other Linux distros can say that?
Its going to take more than declaring /usr/local off limits to solve
the problem of inter-distribution operability. There's the problems
with shared libs (versions/locations), and different package management
systems. And no, 'alien' is not a safe and complete solution (subtle
errors can still happen); this is pointed out in the LSB forum on
freshmeat. These are the problems that LSB appears to be aimed at. I
just hope that the LSB 'process' doesn't end up trying to ram RPM down
everyone's throat.
> : I will try to go back to the original point by saying that with some sort
> : of a standard base, and if Debian were to take part in it, I could rest
> : assured that the application WILL run on Debian. If Debian ignores the
> : standard and other sign onto it, Debian dies. End of story.
>
> You seem to argue this point over and over, yet no-one Debian has
> advocated NOT following standards. I did see some people who saw no
> reason to bump up our version number to "catch-up" with RedHat.
I'll agree here. LSB is still in an 'alpha' state (at best), so there
shouldn't be a reason for all of us getting so worked up over this
issue, here and now. :-)
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
--
Ed
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
