Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Four Linux Vendors Agree On An LSB Implemenation

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the choosing-lunch-is-much-more-difficult dept.

Software 245

An anonymous reader submits a link to this story at Linuxlookup.com which says that "Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux today announce the creation of a common implementation of the LSB 2.0 which will serve as the base for future products. The project, called 'Linux Core Consortium' (LCC), is backed by Linux supporters such as Computer Associates, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, OSDL, and the Free Standards Group."

cancel ×

245 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LSB? (5, Funny)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842281)

It's taken this long to decide on what is the Least Significant Bit?

Is that not it? It sure would be nice if the editors would stop posting articles that do not describe what they are intending to be describing.

Re:LSB? (4, Informative)

calibanDNS (32250) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842305)

LSB is the Linux Standard Base [wikipedia.org] .

Re:LSB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842359)

And there's only one "n" in "Conectiva".

Re:LSB? (4, Insightful)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842315)

My thoughts exactly -- the problem is that we don't have a well-defined idea of what acronyms at this point are well-known enough. You wouldn't see anyone bitching about not expanding AGP, PCI, or SCSI, but hell, I don't know what LSB is...

Well, I do now -- Linux Standard Base. See this link [linuxbase.org]

Re:LSB? (2, Funny)

Eowaennor (527108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842465)

SCSI? That means System Can't See It... right?

Re:LSB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842325)

No no no it not Least Significant Bit. Haven't you heard it Linux She Bangs sang by William Hung.

Re:LSB? (5, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842334)

LSB is obviously USB for Linux. Version 2.0 should offer twice as much throughput as LSB 1.0.

LSB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842741)

is Lower SideBand as opposed to USB which is upper sideband (as in SSB-SC (single sideband - suppressed carrier). Just ask any ham radio operator.

actually... (2, Informative)

softwave (145750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842337)

http://www.linuxbase.org/ [linuxbase.org]
LSB stands for Linux Standard Base. I quote rom the website:

What is the LSB Project?
The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.

Re:actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842376)

And I quote from Omicron Persei 8:

All your bases are belongs to us.

Re:LSB? (1, Funny)

svin (803162) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842366)

It's taken this long to decide on what is the Least Significant Bit?

Don't worry, they're still arguing over that.

Re:LSB? (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842421)

oh I know... I deal with those damn endians weekly

And, is it Little Endian (2, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842430)

Big Endian, or Middle endian? The article doesn't seem to say...

Re:LSB? (1, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842433)

You jest, but there are architectures that have their bits numbered the *other* way around (where bit 0 is the most significant bit, while bit n (n=15, 31, etc) is the least significant bit).

Causes more than mild confusion for the hardware designers who have to suddenly deal with A0..A29 (or A30, A31 on 32-bit systems, depending on the external bus), and likewise with D0..D31. More than once have they been wired baskwards (or the byte enables, as well). Heck, it's a great way to get software developers confused as well...

(If you really must know, it appears PowerPC is numbered this way).

Re:LSB? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842632)

No, read again: They decided on how to implement it. Given that there are many different ways to implement a bit (bits on your hard disk are implemented completely different from CD-ROM bits, DRAM bits or register bits), it's not surprising that they needed that long.

Currently they are arguing about the best implementation of the next significant bit.

Re:LSB? (2, Insightful)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842715)

>> Is that not it? It sure would be nice if the editors would stop posting articles that do not describe what they are intending to be describing.

It sure would be nice if readers would stop playing dumb as a brick.

It's "News for Nerds", not "News for N00bs Who Need Their Hands Held".

yeah bish! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842288)

frist prost!

This is good news (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842291)

Hell, it would be good news if it was just "Two Linux Vendors Agree ... on anything"

Re:This is good news (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842442)

or even one single vendor. Sad but true...

Re:This is good news (1)

IBeatUpNerds (827376) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842568)

I agree. This is great news. I'm glad to see LSB still being actively pushed and maintained. Without such standards, it makes it increasingly difficult to maintain complex commercial (and non) applications for Linux. Too bad Loki games still isn't around. I think they did a great job at keeping their games LSB compliant.

Re:This is good news (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842625)

Well... this is the thing: reaping the benefits of standards yet allowing room for innovation. It's a trick. Hopefully the LSB guys can work this out.

Re:This is good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842655)

It's a trick.
YM "Trap". HTH.

Admiral Akbar.

Finally (1)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842298)

It's time to stop 'creativity' shown in difference of names and paths between all the distros.
Besides that, maybe standarisation can help Linux become considered as one of Unix systems.

So, RedHat, Debian, Xandros, Lindows and all the other big players - we're waiting for you joining this consortium and implementing LSB.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

joestar (225875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842363)

Xandros and Lindows are "big players" losing much much money. So much that Lindows had to cancel their IPO at the last minute because they didn't reach their investment target. That's not what I call big players. At least, Mandrakesoft, Conectiva and Turbolinux are well-known and profitable companies.

Creativity (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842653)

It's not just 'creativity'. There is also:
  • Loyalty to The BSD Way or The System V Way, etc.
  • Corporate strategy: if we do that, are we helping them or us?
  • Different preferences among the developer base of the distro, which may rise to the level of proselitizing.
  • Inertia: an object at rest tends to stay, etc. Subcontexts to that are
    • Corporate suits: who's going to pay some developer to make the change, instead of working on something more likely to make money right now?
    • Developers: why bother? (And by the way, what have *you* or *I* done?)
    • Users: The standard what?

Chorus:
"In the old days, we did it this way. We like doing it this way - it's better, and everyone should do it this way. Who are you to tell us to do it your way? Fine, we'll do it that way and then fork off another distro!"

Every time someone comes up with a Grand Plan or other big push to unify Linux, I am surprised by how few people get it. Unity is nice, but FOSS is not the place to find it. Want unity? Learn .NET.

Re:Finally (1, Informative)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842660)

Deb won't. LSB is RPM based.

Yes, but ... (1)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842771)

what is SCOX's position on this new
standard for their code base? It
can't be an acceptable standard until
ALL the major linux players embrace it.

It really is amazing (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842300)

It really is amazing how Connectiva, Turbolinux, Progeny and Mandrake can come together to form one signle standard base.

Its kind of like Voltron for crap.

Repetition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842302)

Have we saw this movie before ??? Or the LSB is just a excuse to re-act something ???

Article Short on details (5, Interesting)

ezavada (91752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842309)

I didn't see much about what it would actually consist of. Does anyone have links to such info?

Will this include glibc standardization?

Re:Article Short on details (1)

quies.net (760953) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842521)

from the manual:

"The GNU C library, described in this document, defines all of the library functions that are specified by the ISO C standard, as well as additional features specific to POSIX and other derivatives of the Unix operating system, and extensions specific to the GNU system."

Re:Article Short on details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842532)

Have you read http://refspecs.freestandards.org/lsb.shtml ? In practice, glibc is already fairly backwards compatible.

Re:Article Short on details (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842636)

Isn't that like being fairly pregnant?

Re:Article Short on details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842752)

How do you consider Glibc non-standard? It is a compliant C library implementation, and it is well engineered to ensure both forward and backward compatability with a nice stable ABI. What do you consider to be wrong with it?

rpm vs. deb (4, Interesting)

120duff978 (762910) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842314)

Over time, the LCC is committed to increasing interoperability between and Debian and RPM-based technologies and will work toward a common binary core that can form the basis of both Debian and RPM-based distributions.
Well, this is definately a start in the right direction. Many of the really user friendly distro (ubunu, united, lindash) are all Debian based. Good to see that RPM maybe loosing it's popularity.

Re:rpm vs. deb (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842378)

don't forget about emerge -u world

The second parameter indicates how far you can walk before your system is fully updated...

Re:rpm vs. deb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842463)

Seeing that RPM is the standard package format for LSB, I really do not see how this would mean RPM losing its popularity. Could someone point out what's so good about the Debian package format that they won't switch over to the standard package format (RPM)?

Re:rpm vs. deb (2, Informative)

elandal (9242) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842631)

As a long-time redhat user I've come to like rpm a lot. I like spec-files, I like rpm, I like yum.

But, deb's dependency management is a little finer grained. And aptitude is a great tool.

So, if I could get my familiar rpm and yum commandlines, aptitude, and deb dependencies I guess it'd be the best of both worlds for me.

One huge problem for rpm-based distroes is of course that each of them has different packages and dependency trees. Ever tried using five yum repositories and hoping they just somehow manage to get along? As debian has larger number of packages from single source than any of the rpm-based distroes, and debian maintainers seem to handle dependencies pretty well, the resulting repository-hell might be a little easier to handle. But that's not a problem with the package format - it's a problem with repositories and maintainers.

Re:rpm vs. deb (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842666)

if I could get my familiar rpm and yum commandlines, aptitude, and deb dependencies I guess it'd be the best of both worlds for me.


Conectiva, one of the four vendors listed in the agreement, supports rpm under apt. I have used it for three years now, apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade, and all your rpm packages are updated. Runs synaptic too, which is a great way to find which packages you need for a given system.

Huh? (5, Insightful)

Skeezix (14602) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842601)

How does the announcement that they will work together to insure interoperability mean that RPM is losing popularity? Keep in mind the major vendors are still RPM-based: Red Hat, Novell SUSE, JDS (SUSE based), Mandrake...

Re:rpm vs. deb (1)

tajmorton (806296) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842613)

What's so terrible about RPM? Anyways, Autopackage [autopackage.org] is really what the future is. RPM or DEB are fine for packageing the distro, but Autopackage for 3rd party applications.. -- Taj

Re:rpm vs. deb (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842663)

Ack! No, it's not! Autopackage is merely a copy of the crappy Windows way of doing things, where you have to go find the installer for each package yourself. It's much better to have a central package repository, so that you can install a package with one simple command, e.g. apt-get foo or emerge foo. Debian and Gentoo are the real future!

Re:rpm vs. deb (1)

tajmorton (806296) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842768)

Huh? Did you even look at Autopackage. It does dependency resolution. Also, packages can be installed non-root... You go to a website, and you see an autopackage you can download. Exactly like you download an RPM, or a DEB, or a TGZ. Reposotories, like
apt-get foo
or
emerge foo
are provided by the by the distribution. Thats what distros are for! Packaging software. Autopackages are only for extra software that the user installs.

Re:rpm vs. deb (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842698)

I'm a linux noob, and never having worked with using external RPMs (I've always used ones that came with the distros) I've never been in dependancy hell either. My understanding of the problem is this:
1) Over-specific dependencies not liking package version 1.x of the project even though version 1.y does the job just fine, thankyou, and it might be a pain to run both package 1.x and 1.y on the same system.
2) The simple usability failure that they don't automatically fetch the dependancy packages for you or even tell you where to look.
3) confusion about how to update all packages.

More information about the LCC... (4, Informative)

joestar (225875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842316)

Is available in the PR [mandrakesoft.com] and in the FAQ [mandrakesoft.com] .

It's interesting to notice the differences with UnitedLinux. LCC is not to push one Linux Standard, but to push the Linux standard (LSB).

Kolinsky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842326)

http://www.coattails.net

Jobs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842327)

Steve Jobs invented LSB.

Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in pieces (5, Funny)

ClippyHater (638515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842336)

Only one comment and you bastards have killed the server. Now that I honestly can't RTFA, let me resume normal slashdot mode:

In further news, the LSB implementation of the LCC Project will require LSD usage to be fully appreciated.

Thanks you, thank you, I'll be silly all night. Be sure to tip your kernel hackers.

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in piec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842353)

Your sig: I just talked to a guy yesterday who was looking to fill an 80 month project manager position in wisc.
Are jobs that scarce in wisc?

Kenny... (1)

twoslice (457793) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842400)

Only one comment and you bastards have killed the server.

The server was called Kenny....

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it RIP (0, Offtopic)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842570)

Who modded this funny. After so much years of /. one would think some way to prevent this would be implemented. Even google caches. . But still the editors don't behave well. They even leave the faq the same about killing servers,

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in piec (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842671)

Wisconsin,

<deer-hunter>Love 'dem Packers. Gosh, I'd do anything for da' Packers. Remember Vince Lambardi in the glory days? Well I'm a deer hunter, how do you do, I got this dear hunting, rapping tale for you...</deer-hunter>

where taxes are high,

Only in Dane county.

property expensive,

Only in Dane county. (Although some of the outlying areas are starting to go up in price.)

salaries low,

As well as cost of living.

and few jobs to find.

Is it really that bad? Last time I was looking there, it was in the worst period of the economic downturn. Believe it or not, there were positions available, especially in Medial and Government work. The thing that pissed me off the most was that many of the consulting firms jerked you around and then ignored you until they needed to jerk you around again. (Exacta wasn't bad, though.)

The only thing that pissed me (and thousands of other people) off more than consulting companies, was AmFam. Could they even TRY interviewing a few candidates before they change the project requirements? I swear, they were just trying to keep their HR department busy. (Poor guys. They really were trying to staff the place.)

Gotta love it.

I love Wisconsin, but the Madison work culture is probably the most annoying part. :-)

Re:Server dead at 9:40 am EST, may it rest in piec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842688)

Did anyone get the text?

In other words... (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842340)

...this is United Linux II, with Caldera/SCO having joined the bad guys, SuSE striking out on its own and Mandrake (the former champ) and Progeny (the cult favorite) joining the crew.

It sounds like a pro wrestling plot! Hey, what's Darl hiding behind his back? It looks like a ... Ian, look out!

Re:In other words... (1)

DaEMoN128 (694605) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842440)

SuSE is LSB 2.0 compliant http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/ [suse.com] If you look at the summary, you see they mention Novell, Novell=SuSE suse hasn't struck out on its own, its been trying to get everyone to play nice for a while, first with United Linux, and now by backing the LSB 2.0

No, no, no! (2, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842481)

It's United Linux: Reloaded

Get it right or pay the price!

What LSB is (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842341)

What is the LSB Project?

The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of binary standards that will increase compatibility among Linux systems (and other similar systems), and enable software applications to run on any conforming system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for such systems.

What Does LSB Stand For?

The acronym LSB stands for Linux Standard Base. A key goal that led to the formation of the LSB project was to try to prevent the divergence of Linux-based systems, thus a name indicating base functionality for Linux. Note that the project prefers the use of the acronym LSB over the spelled-out Linux Standard Base to reduce the misconception that this is a Linux-only standard (see next question).

source: LSB faq [linuxbase.org]

Was that difficult? No.

Re:What LSB is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842373)

As long as they don't have that stupid /opt bullshit, I'll be happy. /opt has always been redundant, stupid, and a waste of my time.

Supported by Novell?? (4, Interesting)

a_karbon_devel_005 (733886) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842351)

The news brief says "Supported by ... Novell"... so why is SuSE Linux not included in this list?

Re:Supported by Novell?? (1)

joestar (225875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842386)

Because Suse has been purchased by Novell. Didn't you know about that?

Re:Supported by Novell?? (2, Informative)

GrenDel Fuego (2558) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842454)

Yeah, I think he gets that.

I believe his point is that Novell is listed as a backer of this, but their product (SuSE) is not listed among the linux companies that made the announcement.

On the other hand Redhat is also listed in the same manner, so I don't think it means anything.

Re:Supported by Novell?? (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842527)

Both RH and SuSE support LSB, but I don't see them supporting other goals of this "coalition of the willing".

For example, supporting cross-distribution binaries (DEB or RPM) would ruin the investment in Oracle certification and such stuff, so I don't see RH and SuSE rushing in anytime soon..

Re:Supported by Novell?? (1)

GrenDel Fuego (2558) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842658)

Not necessarily.

My understanding is that Oracle only supports installations on certified platforms. If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?

The LSB standard, not the implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842572)

Novell supports the LSB standard, but uses its own implementation.

In related news..... (4, Funny)

leereyno (32197) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842352)

Today Connectiva, Mandrakesoft, Progeny and Turbolinux announced today that they had reached a consensus and have declared that Linux is indeed an operating system.

In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

Re:In related news..... (0, Offtopic)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842415)

They needed a super computer to compute 42. It'll be a long wait until we find out how 2 is connected to it.

Re:In related news..... (1)

cybergrue (696844) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842600)

In related news the value of 2 has been universally declared to be the whole number value immediately following 1. How this relates to the number 42 has not yet been determined.

2*2*2*2*2+2*2*2+2

OK, that's enough silliness for today.

Linux problem is.... (3, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842355)

The problem with Linux has always been too many cooks doing their own thing. It confuses the heck out of PHBs. Any move -- ANY -- toward standarization is only going to assist in its growth....

Re:Linux problem is.... (1, Redundant)

leereyno (32197) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842428)

Lets be honest, the menu at McDonalds confuses PHBs. Shoelaces are worrysome to them. Learning to use toilet paper was a great achievement in their life. The reason why PHBs have their jobs is because incompetent and semi-competent boobs outnumber the competent by at least 4 to 1. The world is ruled, or at least dominated, as "ruled" implies planned and organized effort, by the clueless.

Re:Linux problem is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842692)

No, the problem with Linux is all the arm-chair analysts who can proclaim what the problem with Linux is. Now, if you want to talk about the problems with PHB's (which is all I could really see in your comment), that could cover volumes.

Isn't that why we have an LSB (2, Insightful)

ViceClown (39698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842380)

If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB (0)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842494)

NO, no no. It is for the Lunar Software Brochure. They were arguing over the who's logo goes first.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB (1)

a_karbon_devel_005 (733886) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842576)

They're "updating" the linux standard base specifications.

The problem is that any standards bodies, and I mean most ANY standards bodies, is that they move too quickly to have much impact. We all like to THINK that w3 and other open standards bodies are the "movers and the shakers" but really, it's usually Microsoft or some other corporation like Adobe or Macromedia that come up with the REAL standards. Word, ActiveX, Acrobat, Flash, .NET, etc. These are the "standards" that companies ( and thus the world ) pays attention to.

I think it will take another company like Red Hat to be the driving force behind boosting linux's viability in the coporate (and then home) desktop arena. I'm hoping SuSE/Novell can step up to that challenge.

If LSB people wanted to REALLY make much difference, they would adapt new exciting projects like elektra (http://elektra.sf.net) and not just rehash over all the same material covered in LSB1.

Re:Isn't that why we have an LSB (1)

a_karbon_devel_005 (733886) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842607)

"..t they move too quickly to have much impact."

Gah! Slowly! I meant SLOWLY!

Sort of "yes", but mostly "no". (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842627)

If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?
Nope. It's just a published attempt at creating a standard. The "de facto standard" is however the majority of Linux boxes are currently configured.

The LSB is a documented standard, but it doesn't specify a complete implementation. That's why two different distributions can be "LSB compliant" yet software designed to run on one will not run on the other.

So, once again a few of the lesser distributions are going to band together to work on an implementation common to them so that software written to the LCC implementation of the LSB will run on any of distributions of the members of the LCC.

Which also explains why Red Hat and Novell/SuSE have not joined. Since they really have nothing to gain from diluting their marketing efforts.

The Reference Unix (4, Interesting)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842385)

I've been a longtime SunOS/Solaris user. Recently I've been breaking AIX machines. One thing I've noticed recently is that Sun, IBM, and HP are starting to put GNU tools on their distributions. It's now common practice for a Linux compatibility layer or just ports of the regular GNU tools (including window managers, package managers, shells, etc..). This means that you can get the benefits of your underlying OS *and* have a unified and consistent interface. Though Linux may not be an *official* Unix, it is fast becoming the reference Unix.

Re:The Reference Unix (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842460)

Is there any wonder?
Think about the things that are broken in the default solaris install:

sed, awk, tar
(and probably hundreds more I can't come up with off the bat)

I mean, you can't get far with those being broken.

Re:The Reference Unix (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842550)

You're right in that many of the tools in Solaris don't work quite as expected. I'm not sure if it's because Sun wanted to keep bug-for-bug compatibility with older versions, or just didn't see the need to update working utilitues, but it's aggravating (and potentially dangerous to data) if the tools don't work consistently across OSes.

Re:The Reference Unix (4, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842609)

Think about the things that are broken in the default solaris install:

sed, awk, tar


Depending on what you're looking for you (ie. if you like a lot of the GNU convenience features) can include

ls (no, really, no colors, and lacking all manner of other sugary features)
grep (the raw Solaris grep is surprisngly slow compared to GNU grep, not to mentiona lack of options)
diff (go on, try diff --help, again, all the nice options are missing)

and as you say, many many more. That's some pretty basic stuff that, while not "broken", feels broken when you're used to the GNU versions.

Oh, and killall. killall is always fun on Solaris...

Jedidiah.

Re:The Reference Unix (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842645)

What? It does exactly what it says on the tin... :)

Re:The Reference Unix (1)

jokumuu (831894) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842490)

Well Gnu is hardly linux, but I do agree with you on the priciple. The UNIX vendors seem to have noticed the high popularity of the linux and taken steps to try to make their offerings more aluring to the new crop of techies that think that Linux is the way UNIx should be.

The funny part is.. though my first UNIX was Sun-os and I used solaris for a long time, the world of linus now seems so natural that whenever I use Solaris (or AIX) I want the GNU versions of everything.

Re:The Reference Unix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842674)

You're right -- there's a distinction between GNU and Linux, but it's blurry to many people. Even the BSD flavors have a Linux compatibility layer.

But there are Linux specific tools that are becoming part of commercial Unix systems. RPM, love it or hate it, is becoming part of AIX and Solaris. Honestly, though there were lots of legitimate concerns about the robustness of the RPM system when it was first introduced, it has grown to a very powerful, enterprise class tool. Neither the Sun or AIX native tools have the same usability features in one application. About the only thing that an RPM backend lacks is a good backout mechanism, and this can be handled via a frontend utility.

There are also many system scripts that are being transferred because they work so well. These appeared first on Linux then were quickly ported.

Four Linux Vendors agree (0, Offtopic)

Locdonan (804414) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842396)

At least Microsoft is not in the group! Bill is such a drag at the parties.

He has jokes that that people can pay to hear, but you only get the punchline, the meat of it is secret.

He talks to everyone, but only 3 times, after that there is a service fee.

He listens to everyone's conversations, then passes the information on as his own.

Networking! (4, Insightful)

IceFox (18179) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842437)

Where is the networking setup standard? Please, please please! Why does every single distro have a different way (sometime only slightly!) of setting up networking? This causes so much pain. From porting script, helping get a friends box working, and getting the latest liveCD working with your laptop. Unlike other aspects of Linux because this is so fragmented even Google might not have the answer for your perticular distro. On top of that most everyday network setup gui tools are ONLY for one distro and you are lucky if it suports more then that one. It is a real problem for linux. Linux has fantastic networking support, but you have to re-learn how to setup your networking every time you go to a new distro. Whats up with that?

-Benjamin Meyer

Re:Networking! (2, Interesting)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842789)

>Whats up with that?

Since most of the packages are same accross all distributions, it's in no big distribution's interest (short-term interest) to be compatible with smaller distributions as that enables user mobility.

So if you're RH you don't want to see some good X program being directly installable on SuSE - if SuSE is slightly cheaper (or god forbid free), why would users of application X stay with RH (all other factors being equal)?

The pressure to standardize Linux to some meaningful extent will come from
a) Smaller distributions (like Debian, Turbolinux, etc.)
b) Software and hardware vendors trying to keep SuSE and RH in check (Oracle, Sun, etc.).

Novell has a range of non-OS software which can make money (like directory server, etc.) whereas RH's portfolio in my view is limited to their OS. Linux standardization will hurt RH the most as it will make distribution type almost irrelevant.
My guess is that RH is there just for the sake of it.
Here's the list of orgs behind LSB.
http://www.freestandards.org/modules.php?nam e=Cont ent2&pa=showpage&pid=7

Long-term, standards will of course increase acceptance of Linux, but by then selling OS support will become commodity.
Look how Sun's stuff got certified recently ("Open Standards") - they'll keep kicking that chair under Red Hat...
http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_pro dlist.tp l?CALLER=cert_prodlist.tpl&_ca_id=&crt=&trt=&S =R2

Okay... (-1, Offtopic)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842459)

... but how many dentists agree?

So how come ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842464)

they haven't included Caldera along with them ?

Mirror (1)

zerblat (785) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842495)

The article is /.ed. Good thing it's also .\ed. [mirrordot.org]

I thought Linus did this (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842523)

I thought what's his name, Linus Trerribald, or something like that, did the core management? Are they ripping it out of his hands? This move would make the Linux core a commercially drive product now wouldn't it? This doesn't sound like a positive thing to me for open source Linux.

Re:I thought Linus did this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842750)

Is that the best troll you could possibly come up with? Pathetic.

Agree on LSB? (1)

lcsjk (143581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842597)

Does this mean we finally have agreement on the location of the LSB? Is it on the left, or on the right?

FYI You can't change the 1's and 0's to dots and commas because it would not be binary anymore.

I seem to remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842610)

I seem to remember LSB1 only standardized some ridiculously basic stuff and didn't really get you any closer to cross-compatibility for applications except in the most minimal of ways. Does LSB2 get any closer?

So basically... (1)

FluffyPanda (821763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842623)

Every major linux vendor agrees that the Linux Standard Base is the Standard Base upon which to build Linux distros?

*Phew* I'm glad we sorted that out.

Now can we please get everyone to stop adding distro-specific extensions to the linux filesystem? I like to know where my software keeps its bits.

Expect the next SCO lawsuite ... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842679)

... because it's clear that the S in "LSB" was stolen fropm SCO (not to forget that SCO holds some IP on the idea of standardizing Linux, given that it was once member of UnitedLinux ...).

YAD (2, Informative)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842685)

Yeah for Yet Another Distro. Let's hype up the fact that Linux is about having a choice and then address the problem of "Linux is about having a choice". This will not make any purchase power wield MIS directors change their minds. They are either comfortable with Linux or not. If you now tell them that it doesn't matter wether you use Novell or RedHat because they are the same, people with Business knowledge will say that both companies are unsafe for long term support because neither understand the significance of PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.

Re:YAD (3, Insightful)

FluffyPanda (821763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842743)

Same? No

Compatible? Yes

They'll never be the same, there'll always be a choice, they could be a little less confusing to switch between.

This might work (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842710)

Yes, this time, these efforts might lead to something. Does it mean that we'll have one common binary for an application for example? Or does it mean that administrators will have one certification?

Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10842732)

I can see it now:

The next version of Mandrake will adhere to the new LSB standard and be called Madrake-LSB. This will unfortunately make it incompatrable with pervious Madrake versions, so they will also bring out a non LSB Madrake version (Mandrake-NLSB) for backward compatibility. Unfortantely becuase LSB doesn't address all Linux standards Mandrake LSB will not be compatable any of the other LSB distributions and visa versa. Also, Suse and Redhat, unhappy with the new standard, are working on the Sushat Standard, while Debian unhappy with both LSB and SusHat will bring out a new Debian standard, which only itself will follow, etc. etc.

I did some of this stuff in the '60s (3, Funny)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | more than 9 years ago | (#10842758)

I'm still seeing trails.

oh, wait, LSB....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>