I speak with a lot of ISVs and with our own developers (of course). Please rest assured that most ISVs I have spoken with EXPECT the LSB to spepcify where their files will be safe. They expect a well defined system - whatever it is, there must be a clear specification.
Personally, I would prefer all files that belong to a Linux distribution to be placed under the standard /usr layout. I would like to see all third party (ISV) files located under a single point in the file system - to me /opt sounds fine. I would NOT like to see open source applications that part of a Linux distribution to be placed under /opt. >From TurboLinux's perspective I will actively support any standard we all agree on. I hear the ISVs crying out for our leadership. Leadership sometimes means that we have to cut the hard or unpleasant decisions. I am not wishing to be controversial but I do look for a unanimous resolve. My 2 cents worth! - John H Terpstra TurboLinux Inc. On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current wrote: > Erik Troan wrote: > > > No distribution vendor is ever going to embrace this philosophy. It's > > > completely needlessly restrictive. > > > > I strongly suspect Red Hat's users would hate it if we started littering > > /opt with things from our distribution. /usr is correct for packages that > > come with the operating system, /opt is correct for 3rd party packages, and > > /usr/local should be left alone for system administrator's use. > > > > Let's standardize the well-accepted tenets of Linux. They've evolved for > > a reason, 20 million people are comfortable with them, and it will speed > > the adoption of the LSB. > > Is this Erik's stance (speaking for himself or Red Hat?), or that of the > LSB? > > If it is the stance of the LSB, many (including myself) will walk > completely away from the LSB if this is the case. That's not a threat, > that's not a flame, that's not a discussion item. > > I am simply saying, if the LSB turns into "what's good for Red Hat is > good for the LSB, what's bad for Red Hat is bad for the LSB," then the > LSB is completely useless to me, I might as well go buy a $1.99 CD for > Red Hat if I want "Linux" (in quotes). And in fact stuff I am working > for my job and projects will not benefit, because they are focused on > other markets, ones that don't consider Netscape, Apache, and Emacs to > be essential parts of "Linux." > > The part where "/opt is correct for 3rd party packages" and > "well-accepted tenets of Linux" added to "20 million people are > comfortable with them" all just sounded like "let the Red Hat de facto > standard reign, it's easier" IMHO. I doubt Patrick Volkerding would > never accept putting one distributions benefits above standardization > (even his own), the embedded market won't care for this approach, and it > sounds like the LSB would will only address the desktops market. > > The whole issue of /opt aside, Netscape on a Red Hat CD doesn't, and > probably never will make me believe Netscape is a base component of > Linux. > > I had hoped that the LSB would benefit more than that, and be useful to > Linux Router Project, muLinux Project, Calcaria Linux7k, CAJUN, > DragonLinux, Trinux, LinuxCE, LinuxSH3, Linux Embedded Project, PDAs, > device controllers, and hundreds of other projects that are taking Linux > (apparently only "the Linux kernel" and not the above LSB definition of > Linux) into brave new uses and markets. > > If that is the case, that's fine. I don't mind, and like I said, I > don't think it's worth fighting over. It's just not productive to > continue to debate this for another 4 days. I would hope that the LSB > would make it more clear that it's really LSD (Desktop) not LSB in this > case as to not waste others time. There are a lot of cool other > projects out there, and I'd hate to see them waste their time on this as > well. > > Good luck, I wish you all well. Good luck on your quest to topple > Microsoft. I'll be happy for you if you win. It's a big big world out > there, there are things I'd rather do than worry about world domination > of the desktop. > > -- > +---- CurrenTEK --- http://www.currentek.com ----+ > | "Robert W Current" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | Founder, President of Research and Development | > +------------------------------------------------+ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
