-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> As it stands, the LSB is a means to an end. The objective we have is to > allow commercial software houses to build portable binary only packages of > their software for Intel systems running Linux. The secondary purpose of > the LSB Spec is that system adminsitrators will get a more consistent > environment to manage. The problem is, with respect to the /. comments, is that most people who are likely to comment on Slashdot believe the latter objective is considerably more important than the former. Personally, I don't care one bit whether Microsoft are able to produce Office 2001 for Linux-based systems and not worry about it only working on RedHat (as if they'd worry. right). However, I *do* care about a consistent development platform, working environment and tools standards base, and the LSB takes steps to provide this. I believe this is probably the same view shared by many Slashdot readers out there. I could be wrong, of course :) - -- Mo McKinlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ekto.org Read http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG/PGP Key: pub 1024D/76A275F9 2000-07-22 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjr49ZYACgkQRcGgB3aidflNUQCePm5Jqg6IU0kclrSN8dbp6obv eh0AnRpiAAI4r+osHAOg0+jz/jzSuHMF =+xC2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
