Okay, I got a chance over the weekend to write something. I've almost certainly got a load of it wrong, and it's pretty certain that it could be improved. All I ask is "if you're a techy, don't improve it yourself - get an Eng Lit person to do it". I looked at the Mission Statement somewhat more, and it comes over very much as written "by techies for techies". A lot of what's been said is there IF YOU DIG FOR IT. It should be obvious.
And I feel even more now that something like this is needed - I read an article (a recent interview with MadDog) today and it made me feel even more that the LSB is seen as the "Linux Standard", not the "Standard Base". So here's my crack. It needs to be a readable manifesto, not a technical overview. And you'll probably need to clean up / correct / rewrite heavily what I've done. But it should then end up on the inside front page of the LSB itself - where it CANNOT be missed. Cheers, Wol. -- draft -- LSB Manifesto The Linux Standard Base was formed in order to provide a Standard Base System for Linux, in the wake of the debacle following the introduction of glibc2 as a replacement for libc5, and the resultant incompatibilities between distributions that ensued from this. While this had little effect on traditional linux programmers and programs, the resulting compatibility problems have the potential for severely damaging the reputation of Linux in the commercial world. The purpose of the LSB is therefore to provide a guaranteed minimum level of facilities upon which commercial software vendors can rely. It is not intended to be of any serious relevance to dedicated Open Source programmers. Obviously, in marrying commercial and Open Source interests, some compromises have had to be made. It will be possible for commercial programs to check whether the system on which they are installing is LSB-compliant. They will then be responsible for installing all the necessary requirements over and above the Base themselves. The major disadvantage here is that several commercial packages may each install the same libraries. The choice of what to put in the Standard Base is a difficult compromise to call, as Linux evolves rapidly but it would not be wise to include either leading edge or obsolete packages. To this end, the base aims to include only mainstream APIs, to pick 'de facto' standards rather than trying to enforce 'de jure', and to require only stable versions, not those undergoing active development. -- end -- -----Original Message----- From: Anthony W. Youngman Sent: 27 October 2000 16:31 To: 'Jeffrey Watts'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Packaging stuff Don't forget that many people don't have "free" access to the internet. In my case I use the office connection (and they want to be a "microsoft only" shop so interest in linux is NOT encouraged :-( or I pay by the second at home. So it's easy to miss things. I doubt I'm atypical in going straight for the LSB document - you know the syndrome - if you don't know something is there you can look straight at it and not see it :-( hence the manifesto is easily missed, whether you try and make it obvious or not. Anyway, I might well have read it - I certainly have now and it isn't the most clear of documents... Try comparing it for clarity with the GNU manifesto in the GPL - there's no contest! I'm no writer, but I'll try and put my understanding in words over the next few days, which will make a basis for a PreRamble, and then hopefully somebody whose "Eng Lit" skills are better than mine will take it and run with it. Cheers, Wol. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 October 2000 23:10 To: Anthony W. Youngman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Packaging stuff On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > May I make an extremely serious suggestion? I really expect it will help > clean up a lot of these wars if you take it up? At the start of the LSB > document itself, preferably in front of the index so it is the *FIRST* thing > a casual browser stumbles over, there should be a "Political PreRamble" a > bit like the GNU manifesto that is *part* *of* the GPL. On the main page of <http://www.linuxbase.org>, under the heading "Mission Statement", there is a link to <http://www.linuxbase.org/mission.html>. This is the LSB mission statement -- is this what you are talking about? I would hope a casual browser looking for LSB information would be able to find that. Perhaps it should be a part of the formal spec -- though I would think anyone looking for information on the LSB would be able to find it easily enough. *shrug* Jeffrey. o-----------------------------------o | Jeffrey Watts | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o-----------------------------------------o | Systems Programmer | "If you put multimedia, a leather | | Network Systems Management | skirt, and lipstick on a grandmother | | Sprint Communications | and take her to a nightclub, she's | o----------------------------| still not going to get lucky." | | -- Jean-Louis Gassee | | Regarding the Windows98 update | o-----------------------------------------o This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please E-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International on +44 (0)20 7351 5000 immediately and delete the E-mail from your information system.
