RE: is LFS LSB compliant?
--- Nick Matteo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Macromedia has to do no such thing. All they have to do for their code to run everywhere is release their source. If they aren't willing to do that, there's a heck of a lot more hassle to install their hidden, uncheckable, unfree program, which is as it should be. I see no reason for us to go out of our way to make it easier for others to take away our freedoms. but, 70% of people using windows will never look at linux, as long as they cannot use macromedia's stuff, adobe's stuff, even ms office. 70% of which people? Most home users I know don't like macromedia stuff, Adobe provides acrobat reader for Linux, have released versions of photoshop for linux, and are considering moving their entire product range over to Linux, if they find enough users looking for it. personally, I won't even support flash plugins on my system(s) [ or any other clientside scripting ] you couldn't pay me enough to use adobe's photoshop or illistrator. with tools as powerfull as vi(m), who need ms office? And with OpenOffice, or StarOffice so the IT Dept can spend money, who needs tools as obscure as vi(m)? I would like to see linux as a mainstream desktop os, just to increase the number of non ms shops around for jobs. :) but, if macromedia, adobe, autodesk don't support linux, then it won't get the mainstream chance. and if there is not a base standard followed by all distros, the commercial support won't happen. For the die-hards, flash 'can' be made to run on Linux with minimal effort, I mention Adobe's products above, but I know little about Autodesk. Autdesk just bought Alias-Wavefront. give it a year, no more Maya for linux, no more Alias Studio tools for linux. I doubt that very much. The studios using Maya and Alias tools do not and will not use M$. Autodesk would be slitting their own necks by removing Linux. leaving only softimage xsi for professional quality cg work for the film industry on linux. Guess you've never heard of Houdini? Come on, a little research won't kill you, just make you look more informed. Also, check the credit screen for k3D, not a KDE app, BTW. I'm sure I've seen those initials, ILM somewhere before (-; yet the rendering apps by most companies work on linux, even autodesk supports linux as a server. ( discreet's* combustion, and smoke are examples, particle flow rendering toold for 3D Studio Max, a windows only cg app ) When building plug-ins for an M$-only app, like 3D Studio Max, does it make sense to provide Linux versions? * Autodesk bought discreet a couple of years ago. as much as we like our free os, and the ability to make it the way we want, the commercial support is what is needed to get linux mainstream desktop, not just server. Yes, we do. But does LSB actually provide the proper roadmap for this? Most think not. It's a good idea, but Linux development is moving far too fast ATM. By the time a standard ABI is selected and work is started, the toolchain has moved on and you end up with a standard that's further behind than Debian! The different distro's aren't incompatable to try to create vender lock-in, as you suggest, they just happened to be developed on different versions of the tool-chain. What is needed is a way to get that tool-chain development synced, and then base the rest of the system on the same tool-chain. But as long as they develop according to their own roadmaps you will always suffer some incampatability issues. Cheers, John Gay -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: is LFS LSB compliant?
Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote: hi all, i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant? snip LSB - no. The LSB is for providers of binary software, among other things it mandates RPM as a package manager, and a particular version of the c++ libraries. No doubt you can build the necessary packages, and the specific version of gcc, to achieve compliance with a particular version of the LSB, but most people don't think that is worthwhile. You might want to read Ulrich Drepper's recent blog on the LSB: http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html Ken Just FYI, I am currently working on a LFS set of LSB compliant bootscripts...and the needed install_initd script (who's functions are stored in a separate file for other init types to take advantage of). I'm working from what Nathan and Alexander had already done in the bootscript CVS. Mostly just because I like to see nice looking bootscripts as it's the first thing the user sees when booting the PC, but having consistancy here is a good thing for everyone who uses a sysv style boot (including Jim's parallel boot scripts) IMO. Unfortunately, I've not had a chance to really look at runit yet (yes I had intended to try it well over a year ago) so I don't know if it can take advantage or not. But this is all on hold for the moment in prep for OOo-2.0...but I'd be happy to put up some samples of what I have done so far if anyone is interested. It's really made the LFS scripts nice and easy to read. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: is LFS LSB compliant?
Jaqui Greenlees wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: LSB - no. The LSB is for providers of binary software, among other things it mandates RPM as a package manager, really? I never saw a package manager requirement in it. http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html version of the LSB, but most people don't think that is worthwhile. only because most people don't think standardising the core is a good idea, they want to break comatability between distros. just to follow in ms' footsteps and lock customers into using thier branded versions But when one has the source available to the package you require, the value of binary compatibility significantly decreases, IMO. If your distro doesn't have a package available in binary form, one just grabs the source and compiles it (or asks someone else to). The point is, you're not at the mercy of your OS vendor or anyone else - you're *free* to achieve pretty much whatever you want to. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: is LFS LSB compliant?
Ken Moffat wrote: You might want to read Ulrich Drepper's recent blog on the LSB: http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html I completely agree with his argument. While they are able to implement the system that passes their own testsuite, this system fails to comply with the spirit of their tests. E.g., they test for UTF-8 support in coreutils, grep and diff. Let's come a bit further and require UTF-8 support (where possible) in everything they ship with their sample implementation. They fail because they still include (non-working) gawk-3.1.4 in their sample implementation, and say nothing about ncursesw (see also http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1049) -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
is LFS LSB compliant?
hi all, i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant? with regards, C.C.Chakkaradeep -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: is LFS LSB compliant?
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote: hi all, i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant? with regards, C.C.Chakkaradeep FHS - maybe. If my memory is correct, the instructions for FHS compliance are in the book, but some of them might be phrased as optional. LSB - no. The LSB is for providers of binary software, among other things it mandates RPM as a package manager, and a particular version of the c++ libraries. No doubt you can build the necessary packages, and the specific version of gcc, to achieve compliance with a particular version of the LSB, but most people don't think that is worthwhile. You might want to read Ulrich Drepper's recent blog on the LSB: http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
