Ask some end users what Linux Standard Base (LSB) is and most likely they either won’t know anything about it, or know a little bit but not enough to qualify as understanding what all the buzz around LSB is about. Ask three ISVs and only one will likely understand the implications of LSB for their business. And only a very, very few will say that they have started the process of making some of their applications LSB-compliant. Read More.
Linux Standards Base: Making Enough Progress?
36 Comments
2004-09-07 2:36 pm
Anonymous
You cannot create a standard, you can only document it.
There is no standard packaging system, the LSB committe is stacked with RPM people so they said RPM must be supported.
LSB has no credibility, it was created by “vendors” for “vendors”, its for people who dont appreciate the strength of diversity in Linux distibutions.
LSB offers nothing for the lone hacker or small project, its just something for CTO’s to make themselves feel like they are part of something.
Look to SuS (Single Unix Specification) and POSIX for standards, they’ve been doing it for a long time.
2004-09-07 3:30 pm
Anonymous
There is no standard packaging system, the LSB committe is stacked with RPM people so they said RPM must be supported.
I would characterize it more that all information in a package compliant with RPM v.3 format must be supported. This means your distro can transmute an LSB-compliant package into whatever is its native package format. You can use “alien” to do this in Debian and Slackware. They didn’t overlook the fact that there are more than one packaging system. BTW, RPM3 is pretty old, and I’d say no distro uses it today.
it was created by “vendors” for “vendors”
And this is bad how? The LSB doesn’t state that all Linux distros have to follow it. How do you herd cats? However, distros that are compliant gain advantages (theoretically) with other vendors. I see this as a good thing in any case. It’d be nice if FOSS projects *could* make a single binary of their programs that worked on all common distros. That’d save a lot more time for fixing bugs, writing docs, etc. that is currently used making binaries for a lot of distros or simply ignoring anything but a few.
its for people who dont appreciate the strength of diversity in Linux distibutions
But the strength of a distro rarely lies in which version of glibc is used. Face it, there is a practical matter that most Linux distros are more alike in their foundation than dissimilar. Its that extra little difference that causes problems for everyone who would like to support multiple distros. This has little to do not acknowledging diversity, as the LSB simply cannot apply to all distros, but by streamlining the commonalities. Also, the LSB is applicable to Unix flavors as well.
LSB offers nothing for the lone hacker or small project
The ability to support all common distros (assuming common == LSB-compliant), with a single binary package is useful. Maybe this doesn’t cover Gentoo, but Gentoo could probably certify a certain build to be LSB-compliant for those who wish it. At the least, assuming its freely downloadable or the LSB board lets this be a special case, Gentoo can supply a build that passes the LSB test-suite, though not pay for the official certification. Similarly with Slackware. They would not be able to use the LSB trademarks, but they could say “passes the LSB test suite”.
2004-09-07 3:36 pm
Anonymous
They think they ARE the standard, they are the [cite]the universal operating system: Debian GNU/Linux
I’ve not seen the Debian guys claim this, though I admit that I haven’t used Debian since Potato was fresh. I do know they claim to be a reference implimentation of a Free Software Operating System. Well . . . what’s wrong with stating the true and obvious.
The Debian community is very arrogant and have the same mentality as Microsoft.
With two major exceptions:
One, Debian doesn’t have near-monopoly market share.
Two, there’s not a single proprietary standard or bit of software in the base Debian distro.
So yeah, they see the world through their own rose-colored glasses and like to strut a bit, but why does this prevent them from being able to pass the LSB test suite? They may decide not to officially certify to use the LSB trademarks (that costs money), but they could be really, really, really close to compatible.
2004-09-07 3:54 pm
Anonymous
The LSB only defines a standard that binaries can work to. Just because Gentoo is installed from source does not mean that it cannot be LSB compliant.
I wouldn’t say it’s “irrelevant”, it’s helping to document and unify the lower levels though these seem to be only rarely divergent anyway. I am not currently convinced it can provide a realistic desktop platform/base set, but that’s a different issue.
2004-09-07 3:56 pm
Anonymous
“Debian doesn’t care about any open standard. They think they ARE the standard, they are the [cite]the universal operating system: Debian GNU/Linux[/cite] … The Debian community is very arrogant and have the same mentality as Microsoft.”
When you use it, you understand why it’s considered as A standards in itself. Because it is. One of the reason for that is that they (like others) deliver on the main promise of the GPL : it can’t be taken away and it has plenty of tools that make it easy to use once installed.
The other reason is the user base : ISPs, desktop and server distros depend on Debian.
No arrogance there.
2004-09-07 4:48 pm
2004-09-07 5:57 pm
Anonymous
When you use it, you understand why it’s considered as A standards in itself. Because it is. One of the reason for that is that they (like others) deliver on the main promise of the GPL : it can’t be taken away and it has plenty of tools that make it easy to use once installed.
Well, I beg to differ on that first part. Debian has a specific set of internal standards, but haven’t been in compliance with “inter-distro” standards, making it harder to deploy software that works across all distros.
This, of course, doesn’t delve into whether or not LSB is the correct set of standards, and whether or not it would be beneficial to Debian to implement it.
Standards would make software and Linux both more usable.
2004-09-07 7:26 pm
Anonymous
“I’ve not seen the Debian guys claim this”
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04260.html
-> Martin Michlmayr – Debian Project Leader
2004-09-07 9:31 pm
Anonymous
Frederik Vos:
Okay, they say it. The title of debian.org also says “Debian, the Universal Operating System”.
I blame it on ignorance on my part 
2004-09-08 2:33 am
Anonymous
Sorcerer is but not Slackware. Slackware uses a package format called tgz. Which is basically a tarred gzipped distribution of the binaries. It also can contain “I think” two script files, one for post installation and one for post de-installation, also it contains a file that describes the contents of the package.
The major difference between tgz and rpm is that tgz does not have a dependancy list in it. So even if you don’t have the right dependencies installed you can install the package anyway. Even though this causes people to think before they install, it does have the advantage of fitting square pegs in round holes. For example a rpm may list something as dependancy that it does not really need. To install that rpm you may need to override the system. tgz does not do that to you.
Slackware does not get in your face because of this.
Having RPM listed as a LSB requirement has I feel destroyed any chance that LSB had at making it as a standard because it was not a vendor neutral choice. It was a RedHat choice.
2004-09-08 3:24 am
Anonymous
Having RPM listed as a LSB requirement has I feel destroyed any chance that LSB had at making it as a standard because it was not a vendor neutral choice. It was a RedHat choice.
When they made the decision of what types of packages to support, RPM v.3 was the dominant package format. I doubt they would’ve gained much support if they’d called for an entirely new format.
Now, that said, Slack can still be LSB-compliant (assuming the developer or community paid for the compliance tests), even though it doesn’t use RPM. You simply have to be able to use an RPM v.3 file. The program “alien” can convert RPM v.3 into Slackware tgz. As long as you can install the files that result in compliance with any LSB-mandated way, it doesn’t really matter that your native package management system isn’t RPM. Heck, even RedHat doesn’t use version 3 anymore (Fedora Core 2 is version 4.3).
I wish I had a more succint way to explain this.
2004-09-08 6:06 am
Anonymous
The problem extends from when RPM v3 was in common use. And Slackware could not use RPM packages. RedHat wanted to make their system the standard and screw anyone else. Or at least that is the way it appeared. If they had just left that one piece out or made it a different standard then everybody would be further along the trail to LSB today. Just as everybody has adjusted to other standards such as FHS.
This Linux Journal article has interesting reactions from some distributors on the LSB.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3433
Note that in that article Debian maintainers seemed to be behind the LSB from the beginning.
My take is that I support standardisation of Linux to a limit that enables there to coexist different distributions and also that a developer can release a package that works on any “Linux” distro. However I believe that the LSB project is not going to acheive that goal because of it’s roots and because it is not independant enough of the richer distributions.
Maybe we need a LSB fork?
2004-09-08 6:27 am
Anonymous
One other thing that bugs me about LSB is the need to pay for testing to be done in order to Conform to their standards.
I believe that self certification/compliance is better, and if you lie about your certification/compliance then your own community will kill you. This takes the monetary pressure off of smaller and free distro’s and enables them to compete with the bigger distros more easily.
I don’t see people having to pay for FHS compliance but I do see an aweful lot of distros that meet the FHS specification. Why because it is logical, it is free and it is not a “private party”.
This is the irritating thing about the LSB, it’s absolutely useless until all the major distributors fully implement it.
Until then, there is work to be done.
didn’t LSB sort of fall by the wayside when SCO/Caldera started trying to sue everybody?
I would love to see LSB join POSIX and cease existing as an own entity. Both LSB and POSIX do the same and would be 100% compatible if they were the same.
You might be thinking of UnitedLinux http://www.unitedlinux.com/ But it started falling apart long before the whole SCO thing.
This is the irritating thing about the LSB, it’s absolutely useless until all the major distributors fully implement it.
—
suse,redhat,mandrake is compatible. not sure about others
didn’t LSB sort of fall by the wayside when SCO/Caldera started trying to sue everybody?
—
you are talking about unitedlinux. not lsb
//
would love to see LSB join POSIX and cease existing as an own entity
—-
not possible due to different goals. posix is a certified standard which requires you to pay for it. not so for lsb
From what i know the only two major distros not lsb certified are Gentoo and Debian (not sure about slackware)
“Today, all major Linux distributions are LSB certified and LSB conformance testing has become part of the distributors’ quality assurance testing. As of July 2004, there were 35 LSB-certified products from 11 companies (almost two-thirds of the products are Red Hat and SUSE distributions) listed in the LSB Certification Register. None of them are ISV applications.”
The situation of linux distributions is ambiguous about LSB.
LSB is a mean to state Linux as something standardised, but, at the same time, major distros ( e.g. SUSE & Red Hat ) don’t want to reveal that most commercial software run on most distros.
I know a <very expensive> commercial sofware which is officially available only for a specific version of Red Hat and run flawlessly on my Mandrake box.
LSB compliance destroys the avantage of “Red Hat” and “Suse” as brands. A standardized linux would help less advertized distros ( Mdk, Gentoo, Linspire, … ) at getting into enterprises.
If LSB does not become a widely accepted standard, there is a chance that Mandrake, for xample, will need to put a “Red Hat Compatible” label on their products.
I hope than there will always be many linux distros all around the world.
If you regard the LSB as a clear definition of a basic, functional Linux system, then it is useful for improving the exchange of software on the Linux platform. Distributions can follow the standard, and attract a specific user group by providing features not required/defined in the standard.
But realise that the whole idea of free/open source systems like Linux, is that every user/distro maker is free to choose a set of components, and glue them together as desired. LSB defines a ‘one size fits all’ base platform, that may be useful for mainstream distro’s, but has no relevance for some specialised distro’s. So having LSB around is useful, as long as it doesn’t become a checkbox item that EVERY distro is forced to comply with.
posix is a certified standard which requires you to pay for it. not so for lsb
Right. You have to pay to get your product officialy certified. You don’t have to pay to be part of the PASC committee which maintains the POSIX standard. From their website ( http://www.pasc.org ):
“Participation in PASC, as in all IEEE standards activities, is open to any individual who wishes to participate. While there is no requirement that PASC participants be IEEE members, membership in the IEEE Standards Association is encouraged of all PASC participants. Once a draft standard is completed and enters the balloting process, only IEEE Standards Association members are permitted to join the balloting pool to vote on its ratification as an official IEEE standard.”
I believe there even was a quasi-invitation from a PASC member for LSB to join POSIX – i’m sorry i don’t have any links.
The in-beta Progeny Linux 2.0 distribution (which is based on Debian) is also LSB-complient.
>LSB compliance destroys the avantage of “Red Hat” and “Suse” >as brands. A standardized linux would help less advertized >distros ( Mdk, Gentoo, Linspire, … ) at getting into >enterprises.
Not really. LSB is only libraries and interfaces. Today
most distros use the same libraries and other standards,
some diffrent versions and options though. LSB defines
a common set that ensures they’re all compatible when
it comes to applications. That’s great.
But it’s everything else that sets the distros apart.
How they set up things, how they look, configuration
interfaces, support, commitment to updates, how long
version/products are supported etc. etc.
Heck, much OSS software ported/compiled on windows runs on everything
from winnt to winxp. The same binary compiled on distro x
version y are lucky to run on version y-1. A mess that LSB
can help overcome if programs are compiled for .. LSB.
And this is ofcourse much more important for 3. party non-opensource vendors..
>If LSB does not become a widely accepted standard, there is
>a chance that Mandrake, for xample, will need to put a “Red >Hat Compatible” label on their products.
That is a possibility…
It’s all hunku-dory having libs/dirs LSB certified, everything falls apart when kernels aren’t – your LSB certifications mean nothing with some kernels supporting REGPARM or 4KSTACKS or KERNEL_PREEMPT or devfs or other things that make kernels behave differently.
Another thing that needs to be certified is glibc – some distros ship glibc 3.2 and others ship glibc 3.3 which are totally incompatible – check some of the new gnu* functions in glibc 3.3 that cause problems with apps compiled with glibc 3.2 (one of the problems we have found is gnu_mkdev which conflicts with regular mkdev)
best regards
Dev
I know a <very expensive> commercial sofware which is officially available only for a specific version of Red Hat and run flawlessly on my Mandrake box.
That’s more a matter for the software vendors than the distros. While their software may work happily on a variety of distros, companies like Oracle or IBM don’t have the resources to test each version of their software on every single possible Linux variant around – instead, they just pick a few of the major distros, and certify their product agaisnt the latest version of those distros.
There is talk about a LSBng (next gen)…
Some things that need to be considered for the next generation is a standard set of config tools, config files etc.
A standard for building desktop menus, making entries into those menus etc needs to be built as well.
Come up with the standards and then people like KDE and GNOME can code to use them, othewise they will both come up with their own.
A standard set of configuration tools needs to be built and/or donated to the community by someone like SuSe… and these need to become part of the LSB that says that you will always be able to use GUI-tool-x to setup the network interfaces, and GUI-tool-y to configure printing etc.. if the vendors want to have their own tools thats fine but they need to also install the standard set as well for LSB compliance.
Personally, I would like to see a large distro be built around this: http://elektra.sourceforge.net/
That would be revolutionary, and might cause other distros to take notice and copy it.
Personally, I think this is the next big evolutionary step for Linux in the future.
OpenDesktop.org already covers the issues you mentioned and many have already been implamented into various distros.
I meant FREEDESKTOP.ORG
http://www.freedesktop.org/
aren’t rpms specified by the lsb? isn’t that a problem for deb and gentoo? Also, what’s the point? Nothings supposed to work easily, is it? Where’s the fun in that? I like that half of the apps I need are only supported on Suse and the other half are redhat exclusive. It makes linux challenging.
The LSB, in its previous standards, specifies that LSB-compliant packages have to be “available” as rpm v.3 packages.
They’ve usually said that the form in which the package is distributable doesn’t matter, so long as the package is LSB-compliant if transformed into a rpm v.3 package. You can use the program alien to do this.
I admit, its a little difficult to explain, but Debian could be (and possibly is, though I haven’t checked), LSB-compliant and still use .deb packages.
Debian is working on LSB compliancy. Current status, that is, all LSB-related bugs are tracked at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/lsb.cgi . Please help fix them.
Gentoo and Slackware are never going to be LSB compliant as they are source-based distros. If you read LSB conditions, it reads that programs are to be binary. This has been discussed on the Gentoo forums/mailing list lately and the feeling of most respondents is that LSB doen’t mean anything in the real world.
why do people continue to look to linuxworld.com for anything remotely connected to linux ?
this site, owned my sys-con.com has always been a “linux type” front-end for pro- microsoft crap.
have a surf around the site and you will see what I mean.
Please do not post any more bollocks from this site
Debian doesn’t care about any open standard. They think they ARE the standard, they are the [cite]the universal operating system: Debian GNU/Linux[/cite] … The Debian community is very arrogant and have the same mentality as Microsoft.
Personally, I would like to see a large distro be built around this: