Redhat is listed on the LSB website as a contributor. Redhat follows (most) of FHS 2.2. LSB uses RPM for package installation. Redhat's runlevels match LSB. I guess I'm not seeing the problems you are talking about. Any specifics?
I haven't seen any distribution that completely adheres to LSB, yet. Debian doesn't, and I've seen lots of arguments on the debian lists about how much they should change to accomodate LSB. > ulp. Now I've stirred the penguinmonster... > > Basically, my peeve is that RH isn't behind the LSB > project, and use slightly different UNIX conventions > that other LSB backers. Why not? Or should I just not > care about that?
