Linux needs a home Base
Summary
Topics
To combat the problem, Linux Internationalcreated the Linux Standard Basegroup almost three years ago, with a mandate to develop a single platformspecification that developers could target and distributors couldimplement. The group has hit a number of bumps since then, including abrief (but loud) challenge from the Since then the LSB has been working on the tough and unsexy tasks ofdefining a standard, creating a sample implementation, and testing forcompliance. According to LSB organizers, the pace has picked upsignificantly over the last six months, sparked by additional resourcesfrom sponsors and by new members like George Kraft from IBM, who nowchairs the LSB's technical committee. The group has already met a number of important milestones: The Open Group's involvement is also good news for those who areinterested in bridging the gaps between Linux and Unix standards. WhileLinux likely will never conform to The Open Group's Unix specifications,cooperation at this level benefits those moving between the Unix and Linuxworlds. So where exactly is the complete LSB specification at this time? Right nowit's at version 0.7.4 and moving ahead rapidly. "You will see a successfulLSB 1.0 in 2001 or I'll publicly eat my tennis shoe," Scott McNeil, LSBspokesman, told me. That's good to hear, because the LSB really needs to have its spec outthis year. Waiting three years hasn't really been much of a problem. Afterall, it's taken that much time for Linux to reach an installed base (notto mention the technical maturity) capable of attracting conventionalcommercial developers. But as Linux moves further into the computingmainstream, the absence of a standard porting platform forces developersto take matters into their own hands, as I described in my previouscolumn. I'd especially prefer not to have a situation in which applicationscompanies feel pressed into making their own Linux distributions,specially designed to run their software. This has already happened atleast once, in the form of the Japanese Miracle Linuxdistribution, designed expressly by and for Oracle. Or, worst of all, developers will just shrug their shoulders at the wholeperception of Linux fragmentation and not develop for the platform atall. It's critical for the LSB specification to produce a stable target forLinux developers, especially for vendors of proprietary packages thatwon't come with source code. While it's important that LSB adherence beoptional -- not every specialized distribution has the need to runproprietary applications -- the existence of a cross-vendor standard willbecome rapidly accepted throughout the community once it's out. I know and like many people within the LSB. I like the path it has taken,and I think it has been correct to do it right rather than rush it. WouldI have preferred a full spec sooner? Of course--who wouldn't? But inreality, the long wait is acceptable given the pubescent stage of Linux'smaturity as a mainstream OS. Still, there is a limit to patience, and in the absence of a standard,developers will either figure out their own or just stay away -- andneither of those options is pleasant. If the LSB doesn't deliver a fullspec this year we'll have more to worry about than the taste of ScottMcNeil's shoes. Has the LSB taken too long? Tell Evan in the TalkBack below or in the
Another welcome addition has been the participation of
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
