nicholas, plz forgive me for focusing purely on the negative; your paper is basically excellent material.
--- when it comes to promoting understanding and appreciation of the LSB, i think one of the biggest challenges is going to be clarification of what it does not represent, rather than what it does. "Linux Standard Base" is not all that one could easily infer ============================================================ while your paper does indeed discuss some things that the LSB is not, it doesn't seem to try to head off the serious misperceptions evident in the recent discussion started by robert current. LSB is not "necessary", and is not an official authority ======================================================== imo, to suggest that the LSB is necessary, or that the LSB is an authority, creates numerous problems. yes it is likely to tremendously simplify life for many consumers and developers and distributors. yes it has broad support. but to state anything more than that is unwise, imo. ----- here's some specific suggestions for modifying your paper (and, while you're about it, the LSB mission statement?): 1. qualify "Linux offerings", "Linux distributions" et al with the adjective "mainstream". this will help to stem one of the biggest themes of criticism by current and others, by allowing that you are not necessarily addressing the needs of, say, the linux router project's developers and customers. it's a simple change that makes a big semantic difference. 2. replace statements such as "development and support of standards" with "development and support of a set of standards". imo, given the context in which the LSB will be presented, it's too easy to infer from the former that the LSB is an official linux standards body. imo, you are better off not going there, at least not yet. the latter phrase leaves this aspect unspecified. 3. reduce the absolute tone of claims. replacing the word "need" with "would benefit from", and qualifying "customers", "developers" etc. with "many" would help in many cases. 4. in the section dealing with what the LSB is not, explicitly state that it may not be appropriate for some specialized distributions, e.g. the linux router project. i would recommend that you go a little further, mentioning that some members of the linux community are discussing options related to these specialized distributions and that any developments in these areas are expected to be LSB compliant in some way. ---- one final point... the meta message: the LSB is a symbol of Linux's weakness ========================================================= depending on how your paper is to be used and introduced as part of LSB pr, you might need to allow for a significant number of uninformed or "hostile" readers. i fear that a common theme, among those members of the press and public who have yet to get the Linux zeitgeist, will be the notion that the LSB is actually evidence of the opposite of your intent -- that it just goes to show that Linux is never going to be anything like as compatible as Windows will be and is just way too technical. after all, Windows doesn't have to have such an initiative, and when M$ releases pr materials about standards and such, it always paints a rosy high-level picture and ignores the messy details. i think this issue should be one of the biggest things to be addressed in pr materials. imo, addressing this will require at least a passing reference to how the commercial closed source single vendor way is different to the open standards multiple vendor way of the internet and Linux, and that the LSB demonstrates the ability for open source communities to "spontaneously" address co-ordination issues without the need for an official central control. imo, it will also require a de-emphasis of the technical issues involved. otherwise there's a meta message that to use Linux, you have to be more technically inclined. while that is clearly true to a certain extent, it is, i believe, one of the very things the LSB is trying to counter. depending on how your paper is to be used and introduced as part of LSB pr, de-emphasis of technical details might mean that a lot of your paper should become a technical addendum for those of the press that actually have a clue. -- Ralph Mellor: http://www.dimp.com/ralphmellor.html 615.292.2917 x2 If I have my life over, I'm sure I'll believe in reincarnation. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Impact: http://www.dimp.com/ 615.292.2917 or 877.DIMP.COM 2510 Essex Place, Nashville TN 37212 Fax: 615.269.9520
