> Nope. Either tell me that your going to close the spec, or make it > logical why as a system admin I should accept installing X as base on 20 > different servers for no good reason other than Donnie said "Deal." > > if you don't wanna hear from users, then don't ask people to join > discussion lists.. > > What is this a pissing contest? I am not interested! I am working with > 4 other people, working our frigging asses off trying to develop what I > believe will be 2 solid, usable, and logical distributions. I think the > LSB could be very very useful, and as such, would be willing to help > it/support it. But if things are going to turn into an ugly mess that > includes bloat and will take another 5 years to complete, why bother? >
So, I guess making a box administerable from something besides the command line is bloat? You really are a strange individual. With the HD space that ships with servers today having X is not a big deal. Also, attempting to train a large first level support staff on administering from the console is not always economical (and often dangerous :) ). I think your idea of he LSB is a throwback to the days of the 386, that would be fine and dandy if a large portion of people simply couldn't take any more than a kernel and shell, but lets get real... that is not the case! It's no longer the day of command line only! Are you certain you have a PhD? Where from if you don't mind my asking? > I'm looking at what has been done, and what hasn't. And I am impressed > with most of the progress, but I think the LSB is going to shoot itself > in the foot if it comes out with all these requirements. > > I'd rather see the 20+ little pissy distributions stamp "LSB compliant" > on their disks in 6 months, than see a LSB spec that will take 2 years > and only the biggest 4 will comply to. > That's the problem right there, if you want tons of individuals to be able to identify themselves as linux by meeting only a small criteria then ISV simply will not support them! It is difficult to deploy software when you don't have a rigorous idea of what to expect. I agree with the other poster, no one but yourself see it this way. > No one is using the LSB, a LSB compliant distribution doesn't exist. > Why not start with the basics, get it out there, get it accepted, then > grow it to encompass more? Why make something that is all encompassing > (which in turn rules out the nitch distributions) that will be much > harder for people to suddenly comply to later? > It's simple, the lsb doesn't mean squat if it is too general. There are a LOT of companies developing linux apps right now, they NEED to know what libs to link to, where packages are to be installed, libc calls, etc. Gregory S Hayes -
