And lo, the chronicles report that Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo spake thusly unto the masses: > > On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Daniel Bradley wrote: > > The MP3 player platform is considerably different. Chances are that you > won't be installing much software on your MP3 player (or are people doing > word processing in their dashboards now and I missed it?). An MP3 player > is outside of the scope of LSB. The primary goal, as I understand it, is > to provide a baseline of standard tools and libraries that applications > can depend upon the existance of. In the case of an MP3 player, all the > software that is necessary to run it will be installed by the OEM and no > more software (beyond updates) should need to be installed. An application > vendor isn't targeting an MP3 player as a potentail platform. Ditto for a > router. These sort of specialized embedded systems are outside of the > general scope of LSB, and I don't see any reason LSB should make an effort > to include these platforms. They don't benefit from LSB, and LSB doesn't > gain anything from limiting itself to include them. >
Well the first and foremost (and IMO, most important) issue the LSB was supposed to resolve was that of binary compatibility, and I think even devices such as MP3 players and routers using Linux could gain from binary compatibility, esp. if they want to allow third-party (non-OEM) extensions. Parts of the LSB which deal with system calls at least should be applicable here (for those who want only kernel-level compatibility, such as perhaps Amiga) and possibly those which deal with runtime library support (such as glibc). Just my $0.02 -- Aaron Gaudio icy_manipulator @ mindless.com http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653 -------------- "The fool finds ignorance all around him. The wise man finds ignorance within." -------------- Use of any of my email addresses is subject to the terms found at http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653/email.shtml. By using any of my addresses, you agree to be bound by the terms therein.
