OSNews

Yes, but if you specified standard config files, aptitude for everyone and GNOME as the standard DE, even if that would benefit Linux as a whole, no distribution would follow your specification. Except maybe your own LSB-approved "standards"-compliant distro.

But what, then, is the point? If a standard doesn't let you know what you can expect on a system, which in many cases the LSB doesn't due to its preference for saying "this, or that, or that, or that can be found," then is it actually useful?

I could describe a standard definition for, say, what a web browser is that describes all capabilities (e.g. supported tags and css behavior) of all current browsers. Would that be better than a narrow definion that none can quite meet (hint: this is what we have now)? If you normalize aberrant behavior by creating a standard that says it's okay, did you really accomplish anything? As I said originally you might prevent future divergence, but that's about all.

No, you are not likely to get everyone to agree with and use your standard if you limit what can be considered standard. Is that a problem? Is wide adoption of a set of very broad standards better than small or slow adoption of specific standards? Look at fd.o; they create specs which are often not widely used, but they are very specific and do not merely envelop all current practices.