> This is a major stance your taking, and I think you may regret it. By > saying the LSB is in place to service only ISVs and the like, the LSB will > essentially be seen by the Linux community as "A orginization trying to > impose standards so that commercial software vendors can exploit Linux. > The LSB has no basis in defining standards for Linux, but rather is an > orginization that serves as mediator between the Big 3 Distributions and > commercial software vendors." > > I am not trying to flame here. And I am definately not going to tell you > where to guide the LSB if it's already been decided that only ISVs with > deep pockets and Linux distributions with the highest sales figures will > be calling the shots. > > Setting the LSB up as anything other than a basic standards orginization > for the Linux community itself will cause a huge fallout in support. No > one wants to see the standards revolve around only the parties who are > making money off them (even if it is completely indirectly). > > So... I don't know, that's just plain scary to me. >
I'm sorry, but you just don't get it at all. In fact, I find this entire rant simply a discussion of an uninformed individual who just wants "his way" or "no way". Look, other people might kiss your ass because you have a Ph.D., but a Ph.D. in Chemistry doesn't mean you can school us in Computer Science. I and many others on this list have been developing applications and contributing to projects for Linux since kernel 1.2.13. I want a standard base! I'm not an ISV! I just want something that I know I can write to in order to develop software for "Linux"! Can you please, just admit defeat now... it will look better on you in the long run. > > This does not mean you have to configure X on any machines, it does > > not mean you have to include any X servers, applications, > > documentation, or fonts. We're talking about the core X libraries. > > Calling the inclusion of X "big and bloated" or talking about whether > > or not a server is configured to include X is disingenuous. > > Well, that's something I can accept in consept, that it's just some core > libraries. But, it sort of makes the point meaningless, doesn't it? > Require X libraries, but not any form of X itself? > I use X applications remotely all the time. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that I have set up an X server for several of the servers on my network, but I still use X applications on them. > > Also, including X in the specification does not add much work to the > > spec. Stuart has already pointed this out. > > I never have argued the work that has been done. I feel it's been done > fairly well. But, how far down the road are you looking at this project? > By not seperating things into managable hunks, if one of the few people > who know the inside scoop drops out, there will be almost no one in the > community able or willing to step up and take on the job. > > > In addition, we are not targetting ultra-small embedded systems or > > special cases. > > Yes, you are targeting "special cases." Specifically, commercial ISVs and > the biggest of the big Linux distributions. You just made that point > yourself. > I'm sorry, but your methods of deduction are completely flawed. Perhaps, you should grab a logic 101 class somewhere and brush up on fallacies. Gregory S Hayes -
