OSDL's desktop specificaton

One of OSDL's most controversial functions is the creation of specifications for Linux in particular environments. The Carrier Grade Linux and Data Center Linux documents might indeed be an accurate reflection of the features desired by commercial interests in those sectors. But those documents also appear, to the developers who actually create Linux, as an attempt to tell them what they should be working on.

In that regard, the introduction from the desktop Linux document is likely to rub some developers the wrong way:

The people at OSDL know quite well that any attempt to "decide" that desktop Linux would not be developed independently would fail. They do not yet seem to know how to keep that sort of language out of their documents, however.

The introduction continues:

OSDL goes on from there that there should be a single desktop Linux standard. Furthermore, this standard must be chosen from one of the existing desktop environments; any attempt to combine them was regarded as not feasible. The authors are clearly not complete masochists, however: they stopped short of saying which environment they think should be chosen, or even naming a subset from which the choice should be made.

The document identifies four types of desktop deployment, ranging from "fixed function" (locked-down kiosks of one form or another) through to "technical workstation" and "basic office". The existence of a "general purpose" usage category is recognized, but not really addressed in the document.

The bulk of the document follows: it is a tiresome series of tables describing the capabilities the authors think desktop Linux should have. Many of them are obvious, and already present: x86 processor support, USB support, IPv4, and so on. Some will be controversial: DVD playback support (which "will require licenses") and implementation of digital restrictions management schemes. Some make sense, and are in the works: persistent device naming, good IPSec support, etc. And some things are strange in their absence: instant messaging, Microsoft document format support, electronic mail, internationalization, and so on.

And a few things are bizarre. It would appear that all desktop users, even those with "fixed function" systems, have an urgent need for a Linux installer which uses their preferred desktop environment. Installations must be checkpointed so that they can be restarted in the middle. Desktop users should, it is said, be able to do things like update their kernel without needing root access to the machine. Numerous pages are devoted to various aspects of the installation process - despite the fact that, in a world of widespread Linux desktop deployments - most desktop users should never do their own installations.

If Linux is to achieve desktop World Domination, quite a bit of work will have to be done. Even the most ardent desktop Linux supporter will not (or should not) say that all of the necessary pieces are in place now. When OSDL set out to create its desktop capabilities document, it had an opportunity to identify the missing pieces, the features which, were they present, would make Linux more attractive in more desktop situations. That opportunity was lost in what must have been a series of tiresome meetings creating checklists of features Linux has had for years. Meanwhile the development community continues to improve Linux (for all environments) at a staggering rate - no specification required.