Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jim Knoble wrote: > > > > Circa 2001-Apr-30 14:06:00 -0400 dixit Stuart Anderson: > > > > : On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > : > > : > Fundamentally its a specification about a set of behaviours. Not > > : > who wrote which bits of the existing implementation. Its arguable > > : > that the 'Linux' bit is in part inappropriate > > : > > : I'm open to suggestions for a word that starts with the letter 'L', > > : and means ubiquitous. So far, all I've come up with is > > : "Level-playing-field" 8-). > > I'm in favor of having L stand for LSB, as Peter suggested. > This is in the grand tradition of GNU, so RMS will surely be happy!
If it should be changed, this is my favorite - but why? This is a standard for Linux. If FreeBSD are interested, I doubt they are interested in more than an easier time for their Linux compatiblity layer: After all, most Linux distributions and the LSB is leaning towards SysV, not BSD. I'd suggest focusing on the goal of a standard for Linux - if more is needed later, rename and refocus is then. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
