| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failureSELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failurePosted Jun 23, 2010 23:16 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by RCL Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
this is exactly what the Linux Standards Base is attempting to do.
unfortunately in practice it just doesn't work. This may be because they don't have sufficient dictatorial powers, but nobody wants to give them that much power ;-)
as for redefining what 'Linux' means, good luck with that windmill.
(Log in to post comments)
SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure Posted Jun 23, 2010 23:41 UTC (Wed) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link]
I think that LSB is not exactly the same, but is much wider in scope - it even dictates the installer. And it is a certification board, not a vendor so it cannot produce/maintain the aforementioned core system.
And overall... well, I'm not going to fight for that binary compatibility. I'm a game developer, sympathetic to Linux, but my target platforms are wildly different.
|
|
||||||||||||