> Security issues are still open, but the intent to proposing it to LSB is > not to "freeze an implementation", but only one API, leaving > implementation details undefined.
Its important you freeze an API only after the implementation is in active use and enough applications have been ported that you can be happy with it. > The goal is to have all applications that want to lock a device load a > library with a certain name, and use the functions defined in this API. > Then each vendor is free to supply his own solution, as far as it comply > with the API, permitting even binary-only applications to use the > library. Yes. I support this wholeheartedly but its a bad idea to set a standard until its demonstrably functioning well. Thats why TCP/IP works and OSI doesnt If there are working implementations and people using them fine on whole systems (ie screen/minicom/mgetty/.. are all patched for the library and it works nicely) then I withdraw any objection
