digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Linux Standard Base 4 is coming in for a landing

blogs.computerworld.com — The Linux Standard Base, which brings rhyme and reason to Linux, has just had version 4's first beta release and it looks beyond great.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 15, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

23 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • subgeniusd, on 10/15/2008, -1/+24If more Linux users understood the significance of LSB 4 this submission would have front paged an hour after posting. In terms of wider Linux adoption this is far more important then any of the many other Linux developments in 2008.
  • eraccusa, on 10/14/2008, -0/+15LSB is what I have been talking about to the Linux nay-sayers. Now if we could only see many more vendors getting LSB certification for their products so they can be added to the database: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/lsb-cert/productdi ...
  • int19h, on 10/15/2008, -0/+14LSB is so cool. It's also about to shake off the RPM-centricism.
  • Darkhacker, on 10/15/2008, -2/+13*****. RHEL, Suse, and Ubuntu all support the LSB. I'm on Ubuntu 8.04 and have LSB 3.2 (the latest version before 4).
  • brettalton, on 10/15/2008, -0/+7I think the project you're looking to support is called 'PackageKit' which is spearheaded by Fedora.

    http://www.packagekit.org/

    Unfortunately, for a lot of distros, there are still major issues being worked out: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/PackageK ...

    For one, there is not a full-time Debian programmer on the project which invalids Debian's and Ubuntu's progress.

    I agree though, packages should be called .linux and be universal.
  • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/15/2008, -5/+11Q: What do the most popular Linux distributions have in common with Windows and OS X?

    A: They don't follow LSB.

    (Note: this is not a comment on the quality of LSB, just on its acceptance in real life)
  • antiver, on 10/15/2008, -4/+9This is akin to HTML 5.0 being released. If you would digg HTML 5.0, then digg this.
  • HSaraiva, on 10/15/2008, -0/+5More importantly:
    When are we getting a standard for installation files/packages(whatever you want to call them)?
  • oobuntu, on 10/15/2008, -0/+4RHEL is a major distro..
  • Vadi0, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3Yay. My app: http://www.ubuntu-pics.de/bild/4493/screenshot_92_ ...

    Not getting LSB certification anytime soon, but at least I got all major & new distros supported :)
  • Vadi0, on 10/15/2008, -3/+6Hey, Nautilus getting tabs is pretty damn important.
  • brettalton, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3LSB4 is really cool.

    Oops, I just paraphrased his article.
  • kevjaun, on 10/20/2008, -0/+2Standardisation of binary formats would be fantastic, the problem is that the approach taken was to standardise to the market leaders (RedHat) RPM format. So what about deb? How many of you here are actually using RPM systems now? LSB essentially leaves Debian and Ubuntu out in the cold. Yes we could talk about Alien, but it is inconsistent.

    Standards == good, but whether it should be under LSB is another question.

    ... digg for standards, just not LSB
  • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/16/2008, -1/+3They have *some* LSB support, but some (Ubuntu, particularly) deviate from it in major ways. If you sit down and write, say, scripts to install software, or push updates to a web server, or numerous other tasks that the working Linux administrator has to do frequently, and you base your scripts on what LSB says you can expect to find, you are going to be sorely disappointed when you try to actually put those scripts into production. You'll have to back and add a lot of special cases that check which distribution you are on and react accordingly.
  • subgeniusd, on 10/16/2008, -0/+2I was going to write a few sentences but the article actually explains the standard and it's implications quite thoroughly. This topic has been an ongoing point of contention for many years, on Digg and all over the web.
  • priegog, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1Ok, someone care to explain? I'm no linux noob, but had never heard of this.
  • Roryking, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1yeah, how do we even know it's about linux?
  • palmer, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Dugg for being what Digg used to be about: tech news.
  • lordmorgul, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2Yeah, but it doesn't have "ubuntu" in the title.
  • Darkhacker, on 10/16/2008, -2/+2@harlowsmonkey

    If that's the situation you're having then you don't have it set up correctly. Make sure you have *all* the necessary LSB packages installed and that you are compiling your application with the LSB compiler. It links the LSB specific libraries to ensure that it uses them and not a distributions modified/patched version of whatever library.
  • maninalift, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1that information seems to be a out of date. Which doesn't look that good for the Linux Foundation :(
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/15/2008, -2/+1Well it can't have MY landing :|
  • Skiessi, on 10/15/2008, -6/+2I prefer XHTML 2.0. Am I allowed to digg?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.