RMS and LSB [LWN.net]

RMS and LSB

Posted Aug 5, 2004 9:15 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487)
In reply to: There is no "v5 ABI", and other LSB issues by JoeBuck
Parent article: LSB 2.0 and C++

RMS did not prohibit the steering committee from cooperating, when acting as private individuals. He prohibited the steering committee from taking an official position.

And I believe that RMS is perfectly right in prohibiting endorsement of LSB. Not only because of the name, there is a more substantial problem: LSB's primary purpose is to enable proprietary software, while position of RMS and FSF in general towards proprietary software is well known: it is negative. It would be against all principles of FSF to officially endorse proprietary software standard.

(Log in to post comments)

RMS and LSB

Posted Aug 6, 2004 1:23 UTC (Fri) by KotH (subscriber, #4660) [Link]

Well, standardization makes writing proprietary software much easier, but you have to also agree that it is a pain to write portable software, even if you just want to support all linux distributions. I actualy miss the times when a simple Makefile with a few constants at the top was enough to compile something. No mess with autoconf/automake/libtool. LSB is for me a step into the direction of enabling simple sofware to work again with simple Makefiles w/o the need to learn the autotools or to handcraft a configure script.

LSB and portable software

Posted Aug 6, 2004 8:15 UTC (Fri) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

it is a pain to write portable software

True. But no amount of standardization will make all the ancient incompatible systems suddenly go away. If you want your application to be portable without fancy autotools scripts, your only option is (and will be) to use Ruby, Python, or another scripting language, and let the language developers deal with the portability thing.

LSB is for me a step into the direction of enabling simple sofware to work again with simple Makefiles w/o the need to learn the autotools or to handcraft a configure script.

Quoting "Introduction" to LSB 1.3:

The Linux Standard Base (LSB) defines a system interface for compiled applications and a minimal environment for support of installation scripts (emphasys mine).

You see, LSB is not about source code, it is about binary software.

RMS and LSB

Posted Aug 6, 2004 3:25 UTC (Fri) by bkoz (guest, #4027) [Link]

I think RMS is completely correct on this.

It gives me pause when a group that charges $$$ for positions on its executive board, requires $$$ for certification etc. is establishing standards for free software. Hey, who spiked the water cooler, huh?

Personally, I encourage all linux hackers to work together, regardless of favorite distribution or employer.

"Nations will learn to work together only by actually working together."
Roosevelt, 1943

The only way we are going to get true and meaningful compatibility between different distributions of linux is for the linux distributions to work on this problem directly, with full and equal rights and voting priviledges, not by some self-appointed external group.

RMS and LSB

Posted Aug 6, 2004 5:28 UTC (Fri) by Xman (guest, #10620) [Link]

Honestly, much as I hate to say it, committees work much better when you have to pay at least a nominal charge for a seat at the table. It ensures that everyone sitting at the table has at least some kind of a stake in the outcome. As for charging for certification, it's really hard to come up with a certification process that doesn't involve paying some kind of trusted third party to do testing. So then the question is only who pays for the testing, which inevitably leads to the testee.

I agree having $$$'s in the process makes it a pain, but frankly it works better than all the other solutions (beyond simply not having a standard and letting natural forces push a standard forward).

Design by committee

Posted Aug 6, 2004 8:18 UTC (Fri) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

I agree having $$$'s in the process makes it a pain, but frankly it works better than all the other solutions (beyond simply not having a standard and letting natural forces push a standard forward).

There, you say it yourself: letting natural forces push a strandard is a better solution. Dao rules ;-)