<quote who="Tom Massey">
> What do people think of the LSB 1.0 standards?
Well, yeah. I was hoping that Heracles wouldn't drop the "How to annoy a
Debian user talking up the LSB" cluster bomb. Lucky me. ;)
I think it's very good, and very worthwhile. But yeah, I have a little bit
of a niggle with the packaging section [*]. Excellent work on a very tough
job though, and I hope the many not-quite-LSB and FHS distros take on these
standards soon.
- Jeff
[*] Whilst the idea of a standard packaging system is important, I don't
think it offers any distinct advantages to users at the moment. Developers,
yes. Proprietary software vendors, yes. Users... Not really.
In the blue corner, we have RPM, which is widely known, and has plenty of
third party support. In the red corner, we have deb, which is known well
throughout the Debian community, and allows for the incredibly anal
retentive distribution that it is.
Most RPM-based distro users claim to have an advantage in that they can get
RPM packages of whatever they want, anywhere. Most Debian users don't use
third party (defined as non-Debian official trees, or at least non-Debian
developer maintained) packages at all.
My perspective is that I prefer to use either the packages that are
available (or that I can contribute) to Debian, rather than use mediocre,
middle-of-the-road RPMs designed for various distributions that I may or may
not use (Mandrake vs. Red Hat vs. SuSE vs. Conectiva, etc.)
But that's just me. :)
--
We're kind of like Canada, only we hate ourselves more, and it's wetter
around the edges.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
