Robert W. Current <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I propose X, in a full useable implementation be a "Level 2" LSB > compliant standard. > > This will allow LSB "Level 2" to be more useful to software developers > who wish to provide X applications. > > I further propose that "Level 1" LSB compliance include network > services, but not X. > > This will allow developers (including myself) to have a standard base > set to refer to when constructing networked devices that do not require > X in any form. > > I am willing to work with others on a "Sample implementation" of "Level > 1" compliance, because I am (slowly) building such a distribution > anyway.
There are serious downsides to your proposal that I believe outweigh the advantages. If we strip the LSB down to cover any possible use of Linux, it becomes a useless standard. If we create a specification that leaves out X, it needs to be called something other than "LSB 1.0" for both technical and marketing reasons. Technically, it's more complicated and confusing (for everyone: developers, users, and vendors) to have separate levels. Marketing-wise, it's suicide. Why don't you please flame me now for bringing up marketing. Thanks. Dan
