Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Leading Linux Distributions Become LSB Certified
The Free Standards Group has announced that Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE have all achieved LSB Certification. The LSB Certification program was just finalized about 6 weeks ago. I think some about of standardization is going to be a good thing for Linux - what do you think?
On one side, standardization is a good thing, it will make it easier to learn how to use linux, because everything is in the same place, and works the same way. This will make it easier for some developers to make programs and such for linux as well.
One of the bad sides is the exact opposite of the programmer. A virus maker, can more easily infect all linux systems, rather than target specific distros. It would seem that it could be a step towards a conglomerate, which to me, would hinder the "idea" of open source, and freedoms in certain ways.
But, I do think in order for Linux to someday make it into more people's homes is to have it become more standardized. So this could be a very good thing for the Linux "movement" overall.
In my opinion that's a very good thing . I think that Linux distros should be more standard , ok it's Linux after all , but it can be really annoying working with different ones , in the begining. I don't quite agree with you MasterC , virus issues , in my opinion ,should not stop Linux from being standard , otherwise how good is it ? I mean, really ,can't there be standardized distros without loosing security ? This reminds of the brazilian unions , they have thousands them ( shoemakers union , hairdressers union , etc ), it's good as it represents a lot of professions but the workers loose reivindicative power in the end , cause they are not united as a hole .
I don't really agree with the virus issue. The numbers of viruses represent the popularity of an OS. I don't think that hackers have a big dislike against Linux.
It is a very important thing that this standardisation is happening, but I don't like the thought of a thing Linux-standard. I much rather like a more defined Posix standard - because one of the great features of the Unix* ist that a program can be compiled on any Unix.... or should be. Only because of this, linux has been able to become what it is now. So why the heck should we have a Linux-only standard?
But maybe, this is the next step that needs to be taken.
I think that some standards are a good idea, such as having a standardised FSH, but where do the standards stop? If you start proclaiming that only LSB-certified distros are any good, and then more 'standards' are introduced into the LSB manifesto, then eventually you'll get a situation arising that is very close to the whole UnitedLinux thing (of which I am opposed) where all the distros are essentially the same, just the 'addon' programs change... just like Windows (but, grantedly, much better) where the only real difference between them is which version of IE is shipped!
Just out of curiosity, though, where does the LSB stand on init scripts?
Like most people, my opinions are mixed. I believe that some people get used to certain styles or innards of distro's and will never switch over. Whether they are SysV style, BSD style (my fav), or whatever. Standardizing is okay for getting Linux more into the mainstream, but look how far it has come already without standards like these.
All in all, it won't affect me, so I won't push back.
Well, here is my method to my madness on the virus point:
If I were going to write a virus, that would infect all sytem programs in /sbin, then this virus could effect all distro's that have their system programs in /sbin, where if there is no "set standard" then to write a program like that, would be mostly a waste of time, as it would effect a small number of users, because the standard is different between each distro.
That is just a bad example, but I think displays my point.
I think the entire LSB thing is great, but I cant take it really seriously. not with disrespect, but I don't think somebody cares about that standard... well maybe software distributors, I dunno...
and about the viri thing:
most viri that exist can only infect user files, so if you use any common sense not to log in as root and hump on the internet the chance is small that u might get something really scary on your HD.
it is not neccessarily true, how many times have you installed programs from the net without checking out the source files for potential system dangers?
when you told to run
It is possible to insert some naughty code into executables even override some. So the viruses (virii isn't correct, according to http://www.lwfug.org/~abartoli/virus...g-HOWTO/_html/ ) are the issue as well, as linux gaining its popularity not only among server side but also among home users. I agree with MasterC points on the viruses issue. As for standardization I only see positive sides on configuration and navigation issues.
Originally posted by wartstew
BTW: It wouldn't break my heart if Slack went sysV
It would break my heart, except if Slackware is going to use NetBSD-style SysV init scripts. Like other SysV systems it had a bunch of init files in a init.d directory, but starting of daemons is managed via rc.conf and not with symlinks. Something like "SSHD=YES" in rc.conf would start ssd.
So what's wrong with symlinks? They allow you to use one of those GUI "sysV editors" to configure your run levels by a simple point-n-shoot. You can also clearly see the executtion order. Above all, sysV in general allows easy control with a simple commands like: "sshd start|stop|restart".
I guess you could just clear all you symlinks, except for your own "rc.conf" to get the same behavior if you like.
i'm mostly new to this... but unless i switch my major, I'll be writing software before long. and i'm not taking that windows programming class unless they force me, or I feel differently in the future. anyway it goes, if i ever write software, it'll be for *nix. LSB looks like a good idea, since it'll make my work easier and everything more predictable. I fit doesn't work for someone who doesn't have a proper LSB distro, they can get it and hack it to work on theirs, and that's only if I didn't already take my time to make an allowance for other systems.
In Win32, if i have a program that was written for Win98, and it's broken in WinXP, I have no recourse except that nearly-useless "Application Compatibility" thing. If an LSB-compliant prog disagrees with a certain distro or style, the first person who cares can sit down and fix it for the rest. that's what I love about open source... the only thing keeping me from fixing a bug in someone else's program is me.