The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2 [LWN.net]

The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2

Posted Feb 19, 2008 21:17 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
Parent article: The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2

"""
"The LSB meets the increasing demands of ISVs that want to build portable applications for
Linux," said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation
"""

What demands?  Anyone have a full list of applications which are written against the LSB
standard?

ISVs have chosen to test their apps against the distros and versions which they wish to
support.  LSB was a good idea.  But it was also DOA.

It has some PR value.  But that's about it.

to post comments

The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2

Posted Feb 19, 2008 22:35 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] (2 responses)

It also lets distributions not be needlessly incompatible and avoid a lot of tedious decisions: If it's defined in the LSB, and doesn't conflict with existing practice, just do it that way and get on to more interesting things.

The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2

Posted Feb 20, 2008 7:46 UTC (Wed) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

Do you know any example when a major distro would not follow that rule? I don't mean use of newer versions of software (rpm 4.x) or sticking with the choices predating LSB (dpkg), but rather new choices made in violation of the spirit of LSB (e.g. different filesystem layout).

The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2

Posted Feb 20, 2008 8:05 UTC (Wed) by dune73 (guest, #17225) [Link]

Every now and then there is a new distribution that tries a different filetree. They are
quickly forgotten. So I can't mention a name, but search the lwn archives.

The Linux Foundation Announces Linux Standard Base 3.2

Posted Feb 20, 2008 21:47 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

> LSB was a good idea.  But it was also DOA.

An unexpected result, considering the amount of heat that was generated in discussions leading
up to the LSB.

Back then Michael McLagan was promoting his own Linux standardization effort, and it was
supposed to be the end of the world if he succeeded.  At least that's how it was portrayed by
quite a lot of people at the time.  And Patrick had a medium-large cow about the LSB too, but
I think he got over it.

And now here we are with LSB 3.2, which is pretty much a non-event.  All the glowing embers of
passion have turned to ash and blown away, a long, long time ago...