Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Linux Standard Base 1.1

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the so-many-to-choose-from dept.

Linux 162

Staili writes: "Zdnet is reporting that The Free Standards Group released version 1.1 of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) as well as the first version of the Linux Internationalization Initiative standard to deal with Linux language barriers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Post 200 (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936844)

My personal experience with Linux

My first experience with installing Linux was early in my college career. I'd heard great things about Linux, about how stable and powerful it was. That was just what I was looking for in an OS. I wanted something that would stay up longer than my old Windows system. I decided to go ahead and experiment with installing a totally different OS, so I decided to go for Linux. I am disappointed to say that my first attempt failed miserably. I was just too intimidated by the process. Linux seemed so complicated and I was only starting out in the alternative OS scene. I became scared, and my desire to install Linux was quickly shelved.

All throughout my college career though, my friends kept telling me about the power and stability of Linux. When I got out, I was again ready to attempt installing Linux. This time, however, I found the process much smother and easier. Linux was ready to be installed, and I was ready to install and I did so with pleasure. I found that except for a few minor differences involving my video card and sound card, Linux was the powerhouse my friends had talked about. I decided to go ahead and keep Linux for my web-server.

Little did I know how complicated Linux would continue to be. I was naïve, I was stupid, and I was ignorant. I didn't know that there were many people out there who had no desire except to take control of my web-server. I had no clue that Linux was so easily attacked. I didn't keep up with maintaining Linux's security, and in the end my system was taken away from me. Evil hackers took over my Linux and flaunted their control by changing my root password right under my nose!

I still miss my old system, but I am too afraid to install Linux again. I'm afraid it'll just be hacked again, and I'll look like an idiot one more time.

Now my friends are telling me about the strength, power, and security of FreeBSD. They say it's much less hackable, and it's just as rock-solid stable as Linux. Perhaps one day I'll be ready to experiment again, but until then I feel better with my easy Windows system.

Damn it, did I do it again? That's not at all what I meant. Please replace the above words as follows:

  • Password - asshole
  • Security - faithfulness
  • Hackers - homosexual MBAs
  • Video card - love of butter
  • Strength - horniness
  • Something - someone
  • FreeBSD - Michael
  • system - boyfriend
  • Stability - manliness
  • root - lover's
  • Install - seduce (Modify tense as appropriate)
  • An - a (Where necessary)
  • Windows - Golden Shower loving
  • alternative - plushophile (An explanation is available here [sexuality.org] )
  • Hacked - tempted away
  • OS - lover
  • It - he/him (as appropriate)
  • Changing - screwing
  • Linux - CmdrTaco
  • Web-server - beautiful arm and ass candy
  • Attacked - swayed
  • Stable - manly
  • Sound card - distaste of Taco-Snotting
  • Hackable - easily tempted
Propz to everyone who has helped me along the way. I couldn't have done it without you guys!

Re:Post 200 (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936879)

Props to you sir - 200th post and fp. A fine accomplishment that any troll or crapflooder should be proud of.

Re:Post 200 (-1)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936930)

Congratulations mate. Glad to see such a great first post as your 200th, and may there be many more :D

More congratulations are in order too - the missus got a job today, after scabbing off me for 3 years! Woooo!

Re:Post 200 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936957)

dude, the OS rule should be placed before the homOSexual mbas rule, and your It rule interferes with words as 'with'

Re:Post 200 (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937010)

Haha, using Word "replace" to take care of things?

Rather than relying on software to make your decisions for you, why don't you try this new thing called "thinking?" It doesn't require electricity, so all the communist "We shouldn't pollute the environment because that blue-green algae is so cute!" idiots dance and sing and don't wear deodorant in support of it.

Become a planetary activist too. Go hug a tree today (I'd recommend a Honey Locust [washington.edu] .)

But yeah, in all honesty I knew about these things. Just use the leading spaces in your replace rules... (Replace " it" with " he") that should make things a bit easier.

Re:Post 200 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937168)

You stopped posting for an entire day to give us that...um, okay...yeah, um, that's great...dumbass...

Re:Post 200 (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937832)

Actually, I didn't stop posting, I just used a different account.

But just for you, I'll post another story

Once upon a time there was a guy that was never satisfied. All day long he went around and complained about everything.

"This coffee isn't strong enough!" shouted our villian. "Brew another pot!"

Obviously someone didn't get up on the right side of the bed. Perhaps if the space next to him hadn't been empty for the past 20 years of his miserable existance, he'd be a bit more chipper.

"My shift is about to end and I need to zero out my tab. Here's your bill." stated the waitress, bringing a new pot of coffee.

"You think I'm paying for this swill? The eggs were runny, the toast was burnt, and this coffee still tastes like ass! I want a manager."

"I'll see if I can find him."

Our villian waits in his booth burning with anger. Such a big man he is, he can push around a sub-minimum-wage employee of a cheap breakfast joint. He doesn't care about the 3 children she's struggling to feed with her two jobs. All he cares about is proving his obvious superiority over everyone.

"I've heard that your dining experience was unpleasant sir. What can I do to rectify that?" asks the manager. In his mind he's thinking "What can I do to placate this asshole so he doesn't disturb the other customers."

"I've never tasted such filth in all my life!" exclaims our villian for the fifth time this week. "The eggs were cold and runny again, and this toast looks like it was cooked over a charcoal flame. I do not like char-grilled bread!"

The manager sighs as he picks up the bill and tears it up. "I'm sorry sir, this meal is on the house. We'll talk with our cook again."

"I'll give you all one more try. If I weren't late, I'd talk to him myself." our villian states as he grabs his briefcase and jacket. In actuality, the fact that the cook is 6'4" and a muscular 250 lbs is enough reason not to talk to him. It's much safer to criticize his work from in front of the counter. No need to understand the fact that his wife filed for divorce on Monday and won't let him see his kids. No need to understand the fact that this man served in Vietnam and has gotten nothing from his country except spit and anger. No, the only thing that matters is his inability to time the toaster properly.

Rushing out the door, Mr. Coward just manages to grab the bus. As he sits down, an old woman who was right behind him sighs. Behind her is an old metal cart with two bags of groceries. From the looks of her wardrobe and the contents of her bags, it's obvious her life is not easy. Her Social Security check doesn't cover much anymore, and ever since her husband died the pension has gotten much smaller. "May I have that seat sir? I'm only riding two blocks." she asks sweetly.

"Fuck you." Mr. Coward bluntly states, "I got here first. If you're only riding two blocks, it shouldn't be that difficult to stand. I'm riding downtown, and I have a lot of reading to do before I get there."

Another rider stands up to give the old woman a seat. Mr. Coward opens his paper to the comics section. That Dilbert sure is funny!

...More to come

How's this Mr. AC? Keep checking my journal, I'll have more for you later.

Re:Post 200 (-1)

BankofAmerica_ATM (537813) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937692)

A bold strike in the struggle against Project Faustus. On behalf of all free nations in the universe, I thank you, Tasty Beef Jerky.

Thrust Past (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936847)

Hat-trick! w00t!

And Linux is gay.

Shit! (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936871)

I hang my ring in shame. Where once the master of the first, I now languish in the ignomity of second.

Give us a cuddle.

Re:Shit! (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936891)

Sorry for stealing your thunder, but I had some thunder of my own to make.

You can still get a hat-trick. A hat-trick is defined as 3 FPs in one day, not 3 FPs in a row.

I'd cuddle you, but I'm afraid I'd get lost in your bare ring.

Creamed corn feels good... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936850)

when it's dripping from my anus.

suck my salty balls (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936851)

have a fine friday

posix? (2, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936860)

Pardon me, as someone who uses linux, but is not a guru...isn't this the whole idea of "posix compatible"? seems redundant to me.

Re:posix? (5, Informative)

bourne (539955) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936974)

isn't this the whole idea of "posix compatible"?

I'm no expert, but I believe that POSIX compatibility only involves things like system calls and library interfaces. LSB includes things like filesystem layout and recommended locations, so that (for example) you don't have /usr/bin/sendmail on one distribution but /usr/sbin/sendmail on another distribution.

POSIX is an OS standard, LSB is a distribution standard.

Re:posix? (1)

keiferb (267153) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936981)

You know, I've been using Linux for about four years now, and I still have no idea what POSIX is. Anyone care to risk being modded off-topic to explain? =)

Re:posix? (5, Informative)

The G (7787) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937059)

POSIX is a documentation of minimal standards for the things we all take for granted in UNIX and UNIX-like systems. Things like "time is represented as seconds since the epoch" and "regular expressions are available through the regcomp() function, which returns an opque object to be passed to regexec()" and "all POSIX systems will provide threads, mutexes, etc. that meet the following interface, in addition to whatever platform-specific threading they may have."

Linux is almost, but not quite, POSIX compliant -- I don't recall why it isn't, but in practice you're unlikely to run across the boundary cases.

POSIX, however, does not speicify things like the difference between /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, etc. It provides only a fairly minimal set of tool requirements (for instance, .tar files aren't guaranteed to be cross-platform compatible, iirc).

This is the hole that the LSB is trying to address -- creating a standard that actually provides real consistancy not only to programmers but to users.

Re:posix? (1)

PoiBoy (525770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937082)

Look at the post about a dozen spaces above yours. Since I'm such a nice guy, just click here instead: What is the point of this? [slashdot.org]

Don't be surprised... (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936985)

Linux is now written and maintained entirely by the "next generation" of programmers. Pudgy, acne-faced virgins living in their mothers basements.

POSIX arose from the need in the late 1970's, when Unix was under the edict of "Big Business", to have compatible standards.

Ask ANY teenager, not just a Linux Jockey, to listen to something a suit-wearing grown-up has said, and he'll laugh in your face.

So, like Windows, Linux is now doomed to repeat the same mistakes that were made by programmers 20+ years ago.

This is why there are many different desktops available for Linux. Each is more or less the same in functionality, but incompatibilities between the environments have been deliberately coded in. A teenager's ego is pathetic in this regard.

And if you think I'm trolling, remember how Linux started. Torvalds stuck his fingers up at the developers of Minix and decided to go his own way. This self-deterministic ego-centric behaviour is what is tearing Linux apart as you read this.

Too many children coding the same things, (such as, yes, Clock Applets) without any overall plan.

Re:posix? (-1, Flamebait)

CofWheat (464490) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937108)

will you nerds just face reality? linux sucks!

Re:posix? (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937639)

So do vacuum cleaners, and they soon replaced brushes for cleaning the floors of most modern houses. They just took a little time before everyone accepted them.

Re:posix? (2)

ScumBiker (64143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937114)

Linux isn't quite Posix compatible yet. Don't worry about it though, I think it's some esoteric thing like a couple of totally obscure function calls. Not something simple like "ls".

Oh yea, this organization gives us the opportunity to say, "All your Linuxbase are belong to us!". (ducks and runs...) OUCH! Hey! quit throwing shit at me!

Thats all well and good (3, Interesting)

steve.m (80410) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936869)

I see all the major players are involved too.

so, how many of the major distros are/will be compliant ?

when will I be able to buy a book on administing an LSB 1.1 system ?

LSB is about deployment (5, Insightful)

dybdahl (80720) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936972)

A Linux distribution can consist of 90% software not covered by the LSB. Therefore, it makes no sense to discuss "administering an LSB system".

LSB is about minimum requirements for a distribution in order to make distributions more compatible, i.e. it's about deployment. If you distribution is LSB 1.1 compliant, then you should be able to install all software that only requires LSB 1.1. compliance. For a start, this will not cover ordinary GUI software.

In order to create a long-lasting standard, you cannot cover issues that are constantly changing or under development, so don't expect LSB to cover a whole distribution anytime soon. But LSB is an important step to make sure that distributions don't fork into something incompatible.

Re:Thats all well and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937752)

not redhat, they have a history of making the filesystem layout as incompatable as possible.

Only in the last release did they finally put /var/www in there....

sorry but /home/httpd was the stupidest idea ever.. and only served to confuse people. Just like all the other non standard things they do.

I just pray it's not redhat's model they follow but slackware or Mandrake.

All your Linux Standard Base are belong to us (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936874)

what you say !!

Wired Article (4, Informative)

L-Wave (515413) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936878)

Here [wired.com] [wired.com] is an article on wired that i had jsut submitted before I saw this go up...its pretty good, lists some big players. =)

would be great (2, Insightful)

aoty (533561) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936881)

The LSB is, in my opinion, crucial for the adoption of linux by the average Joe. But who actually follows the LSB? We can create system guidelines all we want, but until they are widely followed, they aren't "standards."

Re:would be great (0, Troll)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936926)

I agree that standards are nice, but surely until hardware architectures are standardised as well, forcing a standard LSB will break if you change from little-endian to big-endian?
Surely I'm not the only person to have seen this problem?

Re:would be great (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936980)

Surely you're the biggest idiot.

Re:would be great (2, Informative)

staili (200478) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936979)

Go to LSB's [linuxbase.org] website and you can see the Contributors. If they all follow it it'll be a standard.

Re:would be great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937017)

exactly, which is why BSD will always be the choice for those who love unix, and linux is just for people that hate windows.

Re:would be great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937219)

oh shutup with that stupid, *BSD elitist quote, asshole.

Distros are in but... (1, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936887)

Linus and Alan Cox aren't mentioned. Surely having the distros agreeing is one thing but if Linus and Alan change things within the kernel this would render the LSB pointless.

Windows manages to have some compatibility between 95/98/2000/XP because the control all of the OS, the distros don't control the kernel.

Interesting to see how often LSB has to be updated to keep up with the kernel.

Re:Distros are in but... (3, Informative)

jamesidm (244299) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936919)

they both give it their 'virtual blessing' accroding to an article on the register [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Distros are in but... (1)

Aglanor (539366) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936922)

I really don't get it... IIRC the linux standards guy was sometime ago here on /. bitching and quarreling with Free Sofware advocates because you all complained that having to pay to get a vote was agains the principles of Free Software. Now I see "ooohs" and "aahs", why?

Why in hell do we need standards based on what paying corporations say? Isn't it the whole point of Free Software, not depending on corporations?

LSB "may?" be useful, but surely is annoying. And I don't think we really need it. We develop by darwinistic evolution of code, and not by commitee!

Re:Distros are in but... (3, Informative)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937030)

you don't get it.........the structure of how the distro is layed out is not based on code (other than that of the installer) it is based on where the distrobution creaters what to put stuf, and how they want to link things, and how they want the directories layed out.....it is the structural placment of the programs......code is darwinian, but you need to have certain aspects remain the same.......the lattest stable glib, the latest stable KDE/Gnome, etc.....that is all...this will just put all the distrobutions at the same base at the same time......and the LSB will update as frequently as needed when a new stable library comes out.....

Re:Distros are in but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937011)

Actually the register http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23908.htmli s reporting that Linus and Alan blessed the project.

Re:Distros are in but... (2, Interesting)

smooc (59753) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937026)

Linus and Alan Cox aren't mentioned. Surely having the distros agreeing is one thing but if Linus and Alan change things within the kernel this would render the LSB pointless.

You are forgetting that the Linux which to
which you are referring is actually GNU/Linux.
Linus and Alan have nothing to do with the
GNU part (ok, they have something to do with it but not in this particular case). The LSB doesn't describe the API of
the kernel; it describes for example how
files are being layed out across the filesystem

Re:Distros are in but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937048)

you have got to be kidding....right?

The standard ISN'T about Linux (3, Informative)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937995)

Look for the section entitled Kernel Requirements.

You won't find one. There isn't one.

This actually has a really entertaining implication, namely that despite saying "Linux" a lot, the standard hasn't anything forcibly to do with Linux.

  • I'm fairly sure that the FreeBSD folks are likely to be able to take this standard and make some changes to conform their "Linux compatibility" subsystem with it.
  • I'll bet that SCO (A division of Caldera) could take this standard and make SCO UNIX, with some layering of GLIBC, compatible with it.
  • Ditto for BSDi, AIX, HP/UX, and Solaris. I'd almost bet anything Sun will do some work to get Solaris "conformant," at least looking ahead to Solaris/IA-64
  • It would be quite the shock if Microsoft were to throw some effort into their "Linux Emulation Environment" (it exists; I don't recall the name...) to make it "LSB-Conformant."

The notion that this standard has much of anything to do with the Linux kernel is desparately ignorant of a reading of the standard.

Cunniligus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936892)


Eating a woman's pussy is about the most wonderful thing you can do for her. It makes her feel loved, admired, sexy, and of course it makes her cum like crazy. Many women prefer it to intercourse, and for most, it is the easiest way to cum with a man. You may have the littlest dick on the planet, but if you give great head, you will be appreciated as a fabulous lover. Yes, it's that important. Besides, lots of women expect it these days - you might as well know what your doing.

First off, guys seem to have a strange love/hate relationship with women's genitalia. Guys that can't wait to get their dick into one are often reluctant to put their face "down there". For every guy who says he loves to eat pussy, there's another one who's squeamish. Women know this, and it affects their ability to lay back and enjoy the experience. There is nothing more exciting to a woman than to know that her partner finds her delicious. Don't be coy; tell her. When a guy fingers a lady and then smells, licks, sucks the juice off his finger and sighs as if in heaven, she knows this is her lucky day.

What if your sweet lady doesn't smell or taste very sweet? Don't suffer. (Don't complain, either.) Take a nice hot shower or bath together. Lather up both of your bodies and slide them together. It's like a whole body fuck. Soap up her vulva, washing between her outer and inner lips. Spread her lips apart and gently wash her clitoris. Hey, don't stop - this feels great! Run your soapy hand down the crack of her ass, and rub a finger all around her anus. You can stick one finger in and wash around inside too, if you anticipate any anal play, and I suggest you do. But don't put those soapy fingers up her vagina. Instead, rinse them off well and stick one or two inside, making a circular motion. Think about washing the inside of a tall glass - same thing. Now wasn't that fun? And now you can feel free to let your tongue wander anywhere it pleases...

So now what? You've found a comfy spot to play, you've been kissing passionately, your tongues darting around each other's mouths like playful otters. You've moved down to nibble one of her hardening nipples and she's starting to groan, grinding her pelvis against your stomach. STOP. I know it was just starting to get good. But was she really groaning and humping you, or was it your own excitement you were detecting? I strongly prefer to be excited before a guy starts plunging his tongue into my inner recesses. Use your judgement, and kiss, lick, and fondle your way down her stomach, up her thighs, until she's arching up her back trying to get you to eat her. Of course, if she really was groaning and grinding, go for it...I also don't particularly enjoy a guy endlessly nibbling my inner thigh while my clit is quivering in anticipation.


If the woman you are with is somewhat hesitant about your going down on her, start off with her lying on her back, perhaps half-sitting. Lay down between her legs, with her legs over your shoulders. She may enjoy laying or sitting at the edge of the bed with you kneeling. She can also straddle your face, but be prepared to get very wet. There are endless varieties of positions where you can press your face up to her cunt, some of which strike me as more acrobatic than erotic, but feel free to experiment. And then there's 69...

69 is one of my favorite positions. On the plus side, you both get to enjoy the sublime sensations of getting head, simultaneously. The upside down positioning of a woman's pussy and your mouth is an easy fit and there's more room for your hands. On the negative side, it's a less than ideal position for a woman to give head. Plus, if you need to read this article, you may be better off concentrating your energies on pleasing her, without too much distraction. But even for experienced 69'ers, it's easy to short-change your partner. "It feels soooo good, I'm just gonna stop for a second and concentrate on what you're...aaaarrrgghhh". Get the picture? Some show of will-power is in order.

69 can be done male on top, female on top, or side by side. The latter two are easier, though it's more restful with both partners laying down. Some women love being licked on all fours, so if female-on-top 69 drives her wild, take the hint and find some other ways to eat her in this position. I happen to enjoy male on top, but for many women this is a sure choking position. If a woman can, or wants to try, to deep-throat you, this is THE position. When her head is thrust back you can really slide your cock all the way down her throat. But don't forget what you're supposed to be doing!

So there you are staring at it - the mysterious hole from whence you came, and into which you hope to cum again... First, an anatomy lesson...


Before I go any further, a few words about the clitoris, accent on the first syllable. Most of you know it, but for those who don't, it is THE woman's sex organ, period. It may feel great to be fucked vaginally, anally or otherwise, but if the stimulation is not right there, on the clitoris, you're ignoring the place that's going to make her cum, and presumably that's why you're reading this, right? It's right there at the top juncture of her inner lips, a small knob of pink flesh. This is where it's at boys, and don't forget it. Almost any licking and sucking of the labia or vaginal entrance is going to feel just dandy; just remember that this is pleasurable teasing, not the main event. I can't tell you how many guys have thrust their tongues up my vagina thinking that this was going to make me cum. They were wrong. Of course, with a little manual stimulation....but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Women feel differently about how much direct stimulation they can take on their clitoris. Some women will adore it if you suck hard on their exposed clits, others will shriek in pain. You may encounter a woman who is completely unable to take direct stimulation of her clit; the goal is still the same, but you'll have to stimulate it indirectly, such as through her labia. IMPORTANT NOTE: Often, what is unacceptably rough at first may be fine after she's very excited. The fact is, most women really need a good bit of stimulation before a targeted attack on their clitoris, but once they're there, that's where you want to devote your attention.

The key here is go slow, ask questions, and if she's comfortable with it, leave the lights on and really explore. Body language often does tell what feels best, but I promise, she will appreciate your attentiveness if you ask outright. If she seems shy, get her to guide your hands and mouth with her own hand, and pay attention. If she starts bucking up against your mouth and gasping in ragged little breaths, for God's sake, don't use this opportunity to try something different. Just keep doing exactly what you're doing.


I want to reiterate, there is almost nothing you can do that won't feel terrific, so relax! I promise, you may be confused and uncertain, but she's in heaven. Any licking and sucking of the labia, vaginal entrance, clitoris, or anal area is going to feel just great, and I'd no sooner tell guys to "do it exactly like this" than I would tell every chef to follow the same recipe. But for those who are compelled to RTFM, here are a few techniques that you might like to try:

Try lapping her pussy from vaginal entrance up to her clit, leaving your tongue soft and jaw relaxed. This is a good way to start your tonguing.
Run your tongue between the inner and outer labia on one side, while holding the two together with your lips. Good job, now do the other side.
Fuck her pussy with your tongue - in and out, around and around, etc. This feels nice. Not wonderful or incredible or earth-shaking; nice.
Spread her outer lips with your hand. Then, with your tongue pointed and stiff, gently flick here and there. Feel free to roam, but keep coming back to her clit. This drives some women wild, and others can't take it. Some may prefer that you always leave your tongue soft, so when you try this, pay attention to whether those moans are ecstacy or pain.
The following techniques should not be introduced until your partner is really hot (i.e. she's no longer coherent). These are very intense actions which may be "too much" for some women, even when nearing orgasm.

With her clit still exposed, give it a quick little suck - pulling it into your mouth briefly and letting it go. This is a lot like licking a bit of cake batter off of your pinky. This feels incredible, and is a fine thing to do if you feel like torturing her (see PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER below).
Take her exposed clit into your mouth and gently (at first, anyway) suck on it, simultaneously flicking your tongue over and around it. This can be done very lightly or very aggressively, and combined with fingering, will usually rapidly produce an intense orgasm.
Another choice technique involves rolling your tongue into a tube. If you can't do this with your tongue, you can't learn it - it's genetic. For those who can, this works best in an inverted or 69 position. Roll your tongue into a tube around the shaft of her clitoris. Slide it up and down; in effect, your tongue makes a tiny pussy for her clit to fuck. This also is likely to bring her over the edge.
Fingers are a valuable adjunct to eating pussy. Most women masturbate by pressing a finger or fingers over their clit, possibly "thru" the skin of their inner or outer lips, and vigorously rubbing in a circular or back-and-forth direction. You can do this too, and it is most helpful to ask, or better yet, have her show you how she likes it done. You will never be a good lover until you can bring your woman to climax with your hands. When you fuck her from behind, or up her ass, or really in any position which doesn't allow her to simultaneously rub her vulva against your body, reach down or around and rub her clit. I know it's distracting, but just do it anyway. One important point to note: make sure that your fingers are well lubricated. There is nothing more uncomfortable (and sometimes downright painful) than a dry finger roughly rubbed across one's clitoris.

Of course, that's not all you can do with your fingers. One technique which is very exciting is to spread her lips wide apart with one hand, and with your index finger straight like a pencil, flick the side of it rapidly across her clit. This motion alone will often bring a woman to orgasm. Combining this with the addition of some tongue action elsewhere is nothing short of bliss.

Sticking one or more fingers inside her vagina is also wonderful. You can simply move them in and out (this feels best with at least two or three fingers, pushed in hard), or wriggling them around. A particularly intense motion is to face your hand so that you have two fingers inside her with your palm facing the front of her body. Now move your fingers rapidly, as if waving hello. You are aiming to stimulate a particular part of the woman's vagina - namely the lower anterior (front) part. When combined with sucking her clit, this is nearly certain to bring her to a fast and intense climax.

An excellent way to begin manual stimulation is to stick one (and later two) fingers inside her, with your palm cupped over the mons area. I'm talking about that fleshy "mound" over her pubic bone. Your finger goes in and out and the ball of your hand is pressed hard against her vulva. You may want to rub or even shake the entire area with your palm.

Fingers also do nice things to tight little butt holes, but that's a whole other story...


This stuff is purely optional. If anal play doesn't turn you on, don't do it. If you're uncomfortable, she'll pick up on your feelings and start wondering if it's her pussy that's turning you off. Don't feel that you can't be a good lover without anal play; you can.

Cleanliness is of the essence. (remember that nice soapy shower?) Scoop out some luscious juices (from a very wet pussy) with your finger and rub it around her anus. (If she isn't well lubricated, saliva works too.) If that's all you or she feels comfortable with, fine - it still feels great. But I think most women enjoy the feel of a finger pushed up their ass while they're being fucked or eaten. You need to be gentle, possibly even leaving your finger still. Try moving it in and out a little, or around in a circle. If she starts moaning, you know you're doing something right.

It's really fun to feel a woman's anus rhythmically squeezing your finger as she cums. (And it's great for her, too) You're probably thinking about what that would feel like around your dick, and it's something you should certainly explore. Ass-fucking is somewhat out of the scope of this article, but suffice to say, if she doesn't like a finger up her butt, she sure as hell won't want your big dick up there. Even if she does enjoy this sort of play, she may still be somewhat apprehensive about putting something so large up there. The keys to success are sufficient (i.e. copious amounts of) lubrication (a water-soluble type such as K-Y, which is safe for condoms), relaxation on her part, and a slow, gentle, approach. She'll certainly tell you if she wants you to thrust harder or deeper. And remember, if you want to feel that delicious squeezing around your cock, reach around and diddle that clit!

As for anallingus - why not? Don't feel like you HAVE to do it to satisfy your woman. But if the idea turns you on, great. Let your tongue rove as it pleases. It's not necessary to actually put your tongue inside her butt to stimulate the area. Back and forth, around and around, you get the picture.

One hygiene note: once that finger (or your penis) has been inside her ass, don't even think about putting it anywhere else. Carelessness in this regard can cause a horrendous infection.


I haven't met a lot of men who are completely comfortable going down on a woman when she has her period. But some are. Most women are at their horniest before and sometimes during their period. You should definitely find a way to make her cum when she's bleeding, be it thru intercourse, manual, or oral stimulation. If you feel comfortable going down on her, great. It's perfectly safe. You may suggest that she insert a tampon, and then wash up. (As you now know, you don't need to get anywhere near her vagina to make her cum.) Or you could lay down a few old towels, turn out the lights, and forget about it.


I think variety is crucial. Some guy posted an article detailing a road map of kissing and licking (first here, then here, etc.) Much better to do the unexpected; sometimes a hungry, aggressive approach, other times a laid-back, leisurely one. You can even even include your nose, or your chin into the act. Start slow, that's the key, and let your lover guide the speed of the crescendo. In all cases, start gently. Roughness and clumsiness are big turn-offs. As she gets more and more excited, pay more attention to her clitoris. When she's three breathes away from cumming, moving your mouth off or away from her clit is agony. That's fine if you're intentionally torturing her, just understand that this is what you are doing. The only prohibition is to be reasonably gentle with her clit. Nibbling or biting is fine elsewhere, but we're talking about a sensitive spot.

Speaking of prolonging the agony... I think this is great fun. Bring your partner just to the edge of orgasm, and stop. This is not easy unless you really know your lover well. Instead, just have her help you. Say, "Grab my head and stop me just before you think you're gonna cum." Then take your sweet time. Blow on her clit, take it into your mouth just briefly, flick it just the very slightest bit. You will have this woman squirming and moaning like she's dying. Finger her deeply, enjoy the ecstasy you are imparting, and finally, have pity. Let the poor woman cum.


Okay, she's practically suffocating you, she's pressed so hard against your face; she's screaming and bucking up in the air; you feel her pussy contracting wildly - how long should you keep it up?? The simple answer is, until she makes you stop. Some women may stop you after five seconds from the start of their climax, others may be able to roll right into another orgasm if you keep going. Do come up for air, but remember, her excitement does not drop off as sharply as yours does. Play it safe by continuing the stimulation.

How many times does she need to cum? Some women are very content to have one orgasm. A whole lot of women would really like to cum again, but need about five minutes to recoup. Many women are so sensitive right after they cum that they may push your head violently away. This doesn't necessarily mean they've had enough, only that you need to stop for a few minutes. In fact most women, given a short rest between, are capable of cumming again and again. A smaller percentage of women are able to cum repeatedly with continued stimulation. This is the much-touted multiple-orgasm that is experienced by a minority of women. I know this makes it difficult to know when enough is enough, but there's a simple answer: ask her.


It happens to all of us sometimes - distraction, embarrassment, anxiety, or just an inability to "let go". What do you do about it? The first question is, can she easily bring herself to a climax in the privacy of her own home. If the answer is no - then she needs to do some homework. There are two books on the subject that I know of: For Yourself: The Fulfillment of Female Sexuality by Lonnie Barbach, and Sex for One: The Joy of Selfloving by Betty Dodson; pick up one. Then tell her to read it, study it, and practice, practice, practice!

Now if your partner is orgasmic only when alone - ask her point blank: "Is there something different I can do?" Many women are shy about criticizing their lovers, but if asked outright will surprise you with a very specific answer. It may be a simple matter of mechanics, like a little to right please, or not so rough, or more pressure and faster. Ah... perfect.

But suppose everything is wonderful. She says you're doing everything right but she just can't cum. There are two probable causes: selfconsciousness and/or self-loathing. For women who can't help watching themselves, the best approach is to eliminate anything that focuses her attention on what the two of you are doing. This is a "be here now" kind of thing - definitely not an introspective activity. Get that mirror off the ceiling. Dim the lights or turn them off completely. Put on some soft music. Share a glass of port. (I said A glass - getting drunk will definitely not help). Have her lay on her back, or propped up comfortably with some pillows. This is not the time for her to sit on your face, or the edge of the bed, or standing up against a wall. Arrange a time when you can devote a long period to eating her pussy, and then just keep it up. Forget everything I said about asking her questions - just close your eyes and get into it. I know this can be a difficult and exhausting exercise, but she will be extravagantly thankful for your efforts. It gets easier each time. If all else fails, get accustomed to masturbating together. Gradually begin to add your stimulation to her own, right before she's about to cum anyway. Over time, you can take over completely.

For women who themselves feel that their cunts are dirty or distasteful, all of the above methods may be helpful, but the underlying issue must also be addressed. I am amazed at how many women are ambivalent about their own genitals. They don't love "that part" of their body, and they can't believe that you would either. Yes, it is important to be clean. But clean means a daily shower which includes washing the vulva. It doesn't mean vainly attempting to remove every trace of smell or taste. The natural fragrance and secretions of a healthy woman are beautiful and erotic. Hopefully you agree (and if not, try hard to cultivate this attitude). When she learns to love her pussy, she will be infinitely more comfortable with your loving it too.

This article is pointless! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936907)

Ill troll instead




This whole page widening thing is getting boring.. (-1)

CmderTaco (533794) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936928)

But then again, so is Slashdot... [goatse.cx]
2Lameness has filtered me!


Someone please kill Linus! (-1)

Evil Inside (552726) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936932)

Kill him and forget about this penguin shit!

Package format (5, Insightful)

d-rock (113041) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936935)

How much does standardizing on RPM as the package format affect systems like Debian? From my understanding the whole apt (.deb) system has a lot of nice features that RPM doesn't... Not that it's a bad thing, I just wonder how much debate went into this particular aspect.


Re:Package format (1)

staili (200478) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936965)

Debian is one Contributor to the LSB. I don't think they would've agreed with it if it would harm them.

Re:Package format (5, Informative)

Cpyder (57655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936977)

Both package formats have their (dis)advantages. Standardizing on RPM does not mean you can't get the advantages of apt, however: Apt has been adapted for RPM. It's used in Connectiva [connectiva.com] . More on apt-rpm at this site [sourceforge.net] , or at a search engine near you. [google.com] I hope that with the wider adoption of LSB and FHS standards it will be easier for both users and programmers to use "cross-distro" packages. Nowadays too many packages are wrongly linked to libraries, making them hard to use on other distros than the ones they were made for. Try to install a SuSE package on a RedHat system and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Re:Package format (1)

Scott BaioWulf (540526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937411)

So what are some disadvantages of .debs? I hear statemts like yours all the time but I don't think anyone ever points out a downside to the .deb format.
Care to enlighten me?

Re:Package format (1)

ahde (95143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937843)

its only used on one major distribution

Its easier to add RPM to Debian (for those packagers that only want to supply one binary) than the add .deb to RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Connectiva, Turbo Linux, Caldera, etc.

Re:Package format (4, Interesting)

Alan (347) | more than 12 years ago | (#2938038)

IIRC .deb doesn't have some of the nice error checking that rpm has, like signing. Also compare files on a system to the originals in an .deb to check for tainted files (though while looking I see that debsums(1) might do the trick.

Other problems is the PITA it is to do an non-interactive install of debs. One of the biggest bitches I hear about debian is that when doing an initial install, and you've gotten to the part where packages are installing it goes something like this:

*ask question via debconf*
*ask another question*
*ask same question again*

Also .deb's inadequate logging is mentioned, as well as keeping the install messages somewhere, or keeping previous versions of a package (what happens when you find out that libfoo is completely b0rked in the latest version, and have to run around searching for a mirror site that hasn't been updated yet. This generally only happens in unstable, but it's still a PITA :)

There were a couple of other features that .deb didn't have, but I don't recall them right now.

Some references and info is here [debianplanet.org] though that's a lot more pro-deb than discussing this exact issue, but there's good info there.

Oh, and before you start flaming, I'm a long time debian user :)

Re:Package format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2936987)

They didnt really think about it all.

The power block in the LSB where from rpm based distro's, so they concluded that rpm is more better.

They didnt choose rpm based on technical merit, it was literally a poluarity contest (more distro's use it)

LSB is irrelevent to free software anyway, its merly to assist in the commercialisation of linux.

Re:Package format (1)

segfaultdot (462810) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937329)

IIRC, RPM was mandated as the package format in LSB for downloading packages. Distros can still use whatever format they want for internal packages.

Read the standard. (3, Informative)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937944)

Were you to read the standard, [linuxbase.org] you might be able to figure out answers to these and other meaningful questions.

The ans wer is, by the way, that it doesn't affect Debian in any meaningful way.

  • The standard does not require that Debian drop its own packaging scheme.
  • The standard does not mandate the use of RPM packaging within the distribution.

Read the standard; it's not particularly painful to read.

A much more entertaining thing is to think about how this might affect folks using FreeBSD [freebsd.org] It is entirely possible that this standard allows FreeBSD, which is conspicuously not Linux as well as not based on RPM packaging, to nonetheless become a nicely "compliant" Linux Standard Base platform.

Heck, Microsoft might be able to modify the "Unix Emulation" environment they have running on Windows NT (it's sold as something; I don't recall the name...) become compliant with LSB

This wouldn't be any stranger than when Microsoft made Windows NT a "POSIX" platform, or when IBM got OS/390 certified as a Branded Unix (tm)

The notion that this creates some massive problem for Debian is just plain ignorant, and when the article links to the publicly-available-on-the-web standard, being so ignorant is quite inexcuable.

What is the point of this? (2, Insightful)

phoenix_orb (469019) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936942)

I mean, honestly, don't we already have POSIX? Isn't this what this is really all about? i.e getting a standard out that all unixes can use, with the reliability and scalability to boot?

I believe that linux has partial POSIX compatiblity, but if the kernal was 100% compatible, would we have this "group" of large companies wanting to add features to "ensure" compatibility?

From whatis.com

POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is a set of standard operating system interfaces based on the UNIX operating system. The need for standardization arose because enterprises using computers wanted to be able to develop programs that could be moved among different manufacturer's computer systems without having to be recoded. UNIX was selected as the basis for a standard
system interface partly because it was "manufacturer-neutral." However, several major versions of UNIX existed so there was a need to develop a common denominator system.

Informally, each standard in the POSIX set is defined by a decimal following the POSIX. Thus, POSIX.1 is the standard for an application program interface in the C language. POSIX.2 is the standard shell and utility interface (that is to say, the user's command interface with the operating system). These are the main two interfaces, but additional interfaces, such as POSIX.4 for thread management, have been developed or are being developed. The POSIX interfaces were developed under the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).


So basically, we have a standard, not just for Linux, but for all *NIX's (BSD, IRIX, Solaris, etc) And this geat consortum wants to make a new standard. Hmm, I hope it doesn't break the thousands of programs already out there. I mean, I could live with a re-compile for quite a bit, but this Linux consortum is honestly going to have to come up with something pretty convincing to show me that this compatibility is not going to be broken.

From the Linux Base website:

A lot has been said of late regarding the possibility that Linux will fragment into incompatible versions. Some of the speculation has been well reasoned, some not.

The least credible argument has been that Linux will fragment because UNIX did. This completely ignores the market dynamics that caused UNIX to fragment, and
consequently why these dynamics do not apply to Linux. UNIX was a means to an end, and the end was to sell unique hardware solutions. Linux is the means to a
completely different end - a free (as in free speech), reliable, scalable open source solution. Linux is, in a sense, an end unto itself.


Ok, I can get that, but UNIX (as long as it was POSIX compatible) never split up to the point that it was completely unusable across platforms(and I am talking about CLI, not window managers)

Re:What is the point of this? (2, Insightful)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937062)

here is the most credible argument.....

we want computer stores to start to carry software for Linux, with out the LSB, we will not see this or will see things such as, "made for RedHat x.y"

that is why the LSB is needed, so _consumer_ application makers will make software for Linux.

Re:What is the point of this? (1)

saider (177166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937075)

Informally, each standard in the POSIX set is defined by a decimal following the POSIX. Thus, POSIX.1 is the standard for an application program interface in the C language. POSIX.2 is the standard shell and utility interface (that is to say, the user's command interface with the operating system). These are the main two interfaces, but additional interfaces, such as POSIX.4 for thread management, have been developed or are being developed. The POSIX interfaces were developed under the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Is there a POSIX definition as to where packages go in the filesystem and what libraries are to be included? If so then I would say that your post is on target. If not then perhaps the LSB and FHS should be rolled into the POSIX standard. One stop standards shopping.

Re:What is the point of this? (4, Insightful)

Diabolical (2110) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937295)

The LSB tries to standardize something completely different then POSIX does. It tries to standardize the minmum aspect that a distro must have to be compatible with others. Like mentioned in an earlier post, try to install a SuSE RPM on a RedHat system to see what the LSB means and tries to standardize.

POSIX is more on a programmers level where LSB and the FHS are more on the disk layout and library standardization.

For example: If i have a program for Linux it needs to use some libraries. There are different kind of these with every distro.. which library to include/use.. What is the disk layout? Do i install my package in /opt or in /usr/whatever. These problems are difficult to tackle when you write a linux program. If FSB and FHS are widely used and are really a standard one wouldn't have to worry about these trivial things..

Re:What is the point of this? (1, Insightful)

Pussy Is Money (527357) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937357)

Without actually having read the LSB, I would figure it addresses things like whether it is /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d/init.d, or whether it is glibc 2.1 or glibc 2.2, or whether bash or csh is the standard shell, whether /sbin is part of your PATH or not, or whether /opt is optional or not, or whether perl lives in /usr/bin/perl or /usr/local/bin/perl or someplace else again.

POSIX is not a standard in the sense that LSB is a standard. Even Windows NT can claim some degree of "POSIX compatibility", which should tell you something.

Wee (1, Offtopic)

NiftyNews (537829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936963)

I installed it and it took over my computer! But then again, I should have known better.

After all, everyone knows that All your Linux Standard Base are belong to us.

Re:Wee (2)

discogravy (455376) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937039)

well, maybe this won't happen on this release: since this is the .1 release instead of .0, it'll be mainly bug fixes; everyone knows .0 releases suck ass.

I don't get it... (1)

routerwhore (552333) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936964)

Okay, I may be the only one on the short bus today, but I simply don't see the value in the details of the document. It seems to be very vague and incomplete. For instance, under filesystem, in which the question of where to put things is something that many people think about at some point. It makes three references to some special files in /dev. And for shell it just says to use a posix compliant one, well no shit sherlock. I'm personally not impressed by making rpm the standard packet format since in my 7 years of linux usage I haven't ever used a distro that used rpm. Like I said, maybe I'm missing the big picture here.

Re:I don't get it... (2)

praedor (218403) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937164)

As for the RPM part, I would assume it is because it is
almost a de-facto standard (sorry Debian people/deb-users).
The number of RPM users outnumbers by a fair margin the
number of deb users. Instead of driving all the RPM users and
RPM-based distros from all jumping into deb, they call for a smaller
number of users and distros to take up RPM.

Yes, I like virtually all other RPM users, have been in RPM-dependency
hell. This shouldn't be a problem inherent in RPM. Surely there is a way to
"apt-get" RPMs and handle their dependencies just as well as with apt-get
and deb?

Overall I like the spec. I'd like ANY standard spec, particularly for the filesystem
layout. I would like to know that no matter what distro I install I will ALWAYS find file x in
/etc or binary y in /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin (or vis versa).

Re:I don't get it... (1)

routerwhore (552333) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937283)

"Overall I like the spec. I'd like ANY standard spec, particularly for the filesystem layout. I would like to know that no matter what distro I install I will ALWAYS find file x in /etc or binary y in /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin (or vis versa)." I agree with that. The question is are you getting that from this spec?

Re:I don't get it... (2)

shaka (13165) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937548)

"Yes, I like virtually all other RPM users, have been in RPM-dependency hell. This shouldn't be a problem inherent in RPM. Surely there is a way to "apt-get" RPMs and handle their dependencies just as well as with apt-get and deb?"

Yes, there is. Apt can handle rpms as aptly as debs, as shown in Connectiva's apt-rpm. The thing people always seem to forget, though, is that, while apt is a wonderful tool, it's not the (only) thing that makes installation of packages on Debian so sweet. What makes apt really, really good is the blood, sweat and tears of the Debian package maintainers, who are amazing when it comes to handling dependencies in packages. Sure, the dependencies sometimes break in testing and unstable, but on the whole it works amazingly great.

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937803)

The first thing it says under Chapter 17. File System Hierarchy is

An LSB conforming system must adhere to the FHS 2.2.

It can be found here [pathname.com] and involves rather more than a few files in /dev

Oxymoron? (-1)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936993)

Linux Standards is as self-contradicting as Microsoft Security.

Only a little off topic (1)

americanFatCat (550598) | more than 12 years ago | (#2936994)

As far as standardization goes, is there any word as to when gcc will be able to compile ANSI C++ standard code? As in: using namespace std; and fun jazz like that. Or, contrariwise, is no one planning to do that with gcc as borland can already? Just asking to know, not trolling, honest.

RSB (RPM Standards Base) (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937006)

Call it what it is

Re:RSB (RPM Standards Base) (3, Funny)

praedor (218403) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937111)

Would it actually be "GNU/RSB"?

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to my anus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937077)

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to my anus

Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of my anus lies a small unregarded yellow poo.

Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green penis whose ape- descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think anal watches are a pretty neat idea.

This penis has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the faggots on it were full of cum for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green Taco snots, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green Taco snots that were full of cum.

And so the problem remained; lots of the faggots were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with anal watches.

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the giant dildos in the first place. And some said that even the giant dildos had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the gay bars.

And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a giant dildo for saying how great it would be to be nice to faggots for a change, one anal bitch sitting on her own in a small gay club in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and full of excrements place. This time it was pervert, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.

Sadly, however, before she could get to a backroom to tell anyone about it, a terribly stupid gay gang rape occurred, and the idea was lost forever.

This is not her story.

But it is the story of that terrible stupid gay gang rape and some of its gang Taco snottings.

It is also the story of a anal probe, a anal probe called The Hitch Hiker's Guide to my anus - not an blueboy disco anal probe, never published on blueboy disco, and until the terrible gay gang rape occurred, never seen or heard of by any blueboy discoman.

Nevertheless, a wholly remarkable anal probe.

in fact it was probably the most remarkable anal probe ever to come out of the great punishing houses of OSDN - of which no blueboy discoman had ever heard either.

Not only is it a wholly remarkable anal probe, it is also a highly successful one - more popular than the Celestial Home Care Vibrator, better selling than Fifty More Things to do in gay bars, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where CmdrTaco Went Anal, Some More of CmdrTaco's Greatest Gang Rapes and Who is this CmdrTaco Faggot Anyway?

In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of my anus, the Hitch Hiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Analitica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.

First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

But the story of this terrible, stupid Thursday, the story of its extraordinary gang Taco snottings, and the story of how these gang Taco snottings are inextricably intertwined with this remarkable anal probe begins very simply.

It begins with a butt-plug.

LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (5, Insightful)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937080)

ANYONE start using it! Preferably everyone.

Some people will say well what does this does to debian/apt. I say nothing. Apt is not dependant on using deb as evidenced by apt-rpm. Debian can adapt the Connectiva apt-rpm package and switch to rpm's rather easily (unless they are too pig headed). Also, does LSB compliance not allow you to use other packages as well as accepting RPM's?? That way debian can stick to debs for the short term, and switch to RPM's in the long term. Then at some point in the future, LSB can change the spec and require RPM only.

I would also like to see apt or some advanced package manager included in the spec as well. Apt kicks major booty and takes away the dependency hunt.

Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (0, Flamebait)

markyd (517099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937120)

RPM is utter crap. Kill it ASAP, as far as i'm concerned.

Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (3, Insightful)

GauteL (29207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937218)

"Some people will say well what does this does to debian/apt. I say nothing. Apt is not dependant on using deb as evidenced by apt-rpm. Debian can adapt the Connectiva apt-rpm package and switch to rpm's rather easily (unless they are too pig headed)."

They don't _need_ to switch to RPMs. I've earlier argued that there is no point in switching from RPM to Deb-packages, but the reverse is equally true.

All they need to do is make sure "alien" works as it should, and let Debian-users install lsb-based RPM-packages easily. Internally they can and should keep using debs. Debs is what they can, debs is what they do, and switching to RPMs will earn them nothing except a lot of work. Besides I'm willing to bet that at least some of their volunteers would leave the Debian project if someone forced this change.

In addition Debian should make sure that their debs are easily converted into lsb-rpms.

I _really_ want to see software distributors start to offer packages looking like this: gnome-core-2.0.386.lsb.rpm

.. instead of .mdk.rpm, SuSE-rpms, Red Hat-rpms, Connectiva-rpms.. etc..

Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (2)

TrixX (187353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937239)

Also, Debian has the RPM tool available for installing. DPKG and RPM are not mutually exclusive, you can have both packaging systems at once.

Implies not much about ".deb" (3, Informative)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937324)

The notion that switching to rpms would be "rather easy" demonstrates considerable ignorance.

There is a sizable set of tools used in the construction of Debian that are tightly tied to .deb packages.

apt is only the start of the "advanced" aspect of package management; what's far more critical are the set of development tools, like lintian, debscripts, jablicator, deb-make, deb-helper, equivs, dpkg-dev, apt-move, and such.

Eliminating all of that would be like telling the Linux kernel developers that they have to stop using C, and write Linux in assembly language.

It's not simply apt-get that "eliminates the dependancy hunt;": in order for the set of packages to be kept coherent, so they're not merely a jumble of RPMs of dubious provenance strewn across the Internet, you need the development tools.

To move Debian to RPMs would require rewriting all those tools for RPM use. There's merit to such an idea; if there were coherent tools for dealing with the development of a complete RPM-based distribution, you'd doubtless get better stability. But that's a big task, and your non-recognition of the issue doesn't make it go away...

Debian's dillema (2)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937535)

Sounds to me like Debian is a little too tied to it's package format. And now it'll have to support 2 package formats to be LSB complient. In addition, none of the debian .deb packages can be considered LSB complient since they are not .rpm. In my opinion, too much time has been wasted on .deb, and anymore time wasted on it is time wasted. Going forward, packages HAVE TO BE .rpm to be standard and cross LSB compatible, which is a good thing.

Those who read the standards might have a clue (4, Informative)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937862)

Debian packages do not HAVE TO BE .RPM.

If you were to actually read the standards document, the requirement is:

Distributions must provide a mechanism for installing applications in this packaging format with some restrictions listed below. [2]

And if you were to look for note [2] you would find that it reads:

[2] The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for installing the LSB-conformant packages.

The point of LSB is to allow third party applications to be portable across distributions. That does not mandate anything about how a distribution chooses to package the Linux kernel, GLIBC, or much of anything else that it itself chooses to package.

Indeed, nothing mandates that an LSB-compliant distribution even has its own packaging scheme. A distribution could have all the components required by LSB in all the right spots, and just plain put them there. No "packages;" just files.

Re:Implies not much about ".deb" (1)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937665)

I would oppose debian switching to rpm on the basis that the rpm database is more readily horkable than deb's text files.

Yes, it has happened to me, and that is what made me finally switch to debian.

Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (1)

lessthan0 (176618) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937476)

SuSE has been tracking the LSB for a couple of releases now. In fact, all of their boot scripts moved to the LSB defined locations in 7.3. As far as I can tell, SuSE comes the closest to LSB compliance today.

Red Hat has a long way to go.

Mandrake not only has problems with LSB, but mangles core packages like Apache.

Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (2)

Malc (1751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937929)

Any why should Debian switch from .deb packages to Red Hat Package Management packages? Why shouldn't other distros switch .debs?

Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (2, Interesting)

AmirS (15116) | more than 12 years ago | (#2938039)

Everyone is missing a big point that the .deb package format has many more features than .rpm. I'm not saying this to start a flamewar, but .debs have more advanced dependancy information such as depends, suggests, conflicts, replaces, provides etc, many scripts to run pre/post install, the scripts look after package config files well, also installation ordering, smooth upgrades between different versions of the same package etc. etc.

I would not not want to take a step back by switching to .rpms (unless RedHat or Connectiva hack in all these extra features, which would make them incompatible anyway and need everyone to upgrade so what's the point?)

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937126)

The LSB standardizes on RPM and GNOME. That's going to sit well with the apt and KDE zealots.

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

GauteL (29207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937292)

They do NOT standardize on GNOME. GNOME is mentioned ONE time in the entire LSB-document, and that is as an example for a packagename ("lsb-gnome-gnumeric").

They DO however standardize on RPM, which is fine, because almost all distributions use it. Debian probably only have to make sure they support RPMs as well as debs, something they already do through "alien". RPM is also in the Debian-repository.

Too Redhat-controlled. (0)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937158)

The problem with this LSB thing is, it's too controlled by redhat. Redhat has been one of the biggest problems in putting things in the wrong place and using dumb formats.

If LSB is going to work, they're going to have to start doing things right, instead of how they feel like. Of course LSB can't really be bad, the worst that could happen is just redhat joining it, but I'm afraid that's about all that will happen.

Standards, well, are needed. (1)

oskarfasth (187750) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937161)

This is so needed. Just following a HOWTO doc can be gruelsome, at least for persons who truly needs them (the newbies), due to incompabilities in, for instance, the substructure of /etc, locations of different config files, which may be a hassle to find on your own in the often bloated directory-structures, etc.

IMHO, anything that causes more conformity between distros is A Good Thing, though I am sure many would not agree with me. Hopefuly something will be done about the /&#!"# dependency issues that comes with far too many installs of software not especially (re)packaged for your distribution.

Re:Standards, well, are needed. (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937691)

IMHO, anything that causes more conformity between distros is A Good Thing, though I am sure many would not agree with me.

The key is having conformity where there is no advantage to non-conformity. I wouldn't want Linux to adopt DOS-style drive letters, but the big-endian/little-endian difference between PCs and Macs helps no one and makes for a lot of file conversion work. Ditto difference end of line indicators for ASCII files.

Mandrake (5, Insightful)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937178)

I almost hate to do this but, I think Mandrake REALLY needs to start reading this and taking it into account. I've been using MDK for a few years now and I do really like the distro. Hell, infact, I'm burring the 8.2 beta2 [slashdot.org] right now. *BUT* one thing that makes me REALLY hate what they do is all this -mdk crap. Even something simply like the Kicker Menu icons are all stored in -mdk locations so no source that you use will get the icons right without you making symlins all over the place. And even when you DO make all the symlinks and copy stuff to MDK's locations, next time you install something, their RPM's will run "update-menus" and "fix" all their locations to their liking. THAT makes me not too happy.

For instance Mosfet's Liquid theme [kdelook.org] . He has a kcontrol module that he uses to control his theme. You can't have it on MDK if you don't copy his module to (something like, I forget): /usrshare/applnk-mdk-simplified/.hidden/Configurat ion. Not the two big problems there. First eh mkd specifck location and then a HIDDEN dir on top of that.

It's this sort of thing that (my understand is) the LSB is supposed to help "prevent". I wish MDK would follow it. I think it would REALLY help the newbies if they did.

Tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937452)

Also, someone should tell Mandrake that a standard UNIX/printer tab is 8 spaces.

It's very strange... (2, Insightful)

joestar (225875) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937251)

To notice that Mandrake, which is the most internationalized Linux distribution in the world [linux-mandrake.com] , is not part of the li18nux initiative.
Also strange to notice that the logo used at li18nux website ressembles much to the one used for years at Mandrake's i18n main page! Anybody knows why Mdk is not part of the li18nux initiative?

i18n is easy. (0)

gTsiros (205624) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937307)

EVERYTHING should be in UNICODE dammit! *EVERYTHING*: Sources, texts, executables. That is the only way for completely transparent i18n. I'm tired of having to configure/recompile every single application to display greek characters and then accept greek characters properly.

Ce que je pense... (0, Flamebait)

tfurrows (541222) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937445)

... c'est que nous devrions decider sur une langue universelle. Alors, nous n'aurions pas besoin de standardiser sur les distro de linux.

Au fait, maintenant que j'y pense, est-il offensif de faire des postes en une autre langue ici sur slashdot, ou est-ce que nous sommes standardise sur une langue ici?

Juste mes 2 centimes....

Re:Ce que je pense... (0, Flamebait)

AnonymousNonCoward (528209) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937690)

C'est beau un monde ideal, mais on ne peut pas forcer personne a apprendre une langue, c'est meme ridicule. Du plus, ca deviendrait une barriere... Imagine etre oblige d'apprendre le chinois pour utiliser ton OS de preference!

D'apres moi, ce n'est pas offensif de "poster" en une autre langue que l'anglais, c'est juste qu'on va se faire ignorer en majorite, certains vont peut-etre se revolter, mais en bout de ligne... c'est notre choix =)

Re:Ce que je pense... (0, Flamebait)

tfurrows (541222) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937764)

Je me suis plutôt demandé si il y avait des gens qui parlaient en français sur slashdot... volia ma reponse!

C'etait une question assez bête je suppose, et un essai assez miniscule d'être "funny". Je ne vois pas que ca va etre "moderated".

Re:Ce que je pense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937954)

Go back to France, you hippies!

Re:Ce que je pense... (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2938001)

I'll not attempt to respond in French. I'd like to see more non-angophone languages on /.. It makes the place more interesting ;) It also leads to interesting effects on moderation. I find it sad that some people might be offended by other languages here, which in my mind means it is more important to use other languages: this will forcibly challenge those people. Ultimately, perhaps /. needs a way of indicating posting language, and a way to either automatically include translations, or filter out stuff that one can't read. The main disadvantage that I see is that posting in an alternative language can reduce the number of readers and responses, so it's a choice of how big you want your target audience to be.

About Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937504)

You can already install most rpms with the alien tool. So this LSB thing will probably help alien coders a lot.

My point is that dpkg can be used for Debian.
And rpm for addon software.

Standard of RPM subset (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937554)

While the standard does narrow RPM to a subset of commands. The set of commands seems too large, and the syntax of the commands is ambiguous. Should the commands always allow all GNU options or could a subset (like busybox) be sufficient.

The required command syntax should be complete spelled out, so you could write a portable rpm. If the command set was known, you could write rpm such that it is independent of system tools and does not require the root user to use --root option. This could be good for embedded systems.
rpm and busybox could share a .so.

I think it's time... (3, Interesting)

StarbuckZero (237897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2937740)

For RedHat, MandrakeSoft, Lycoris (Redmond Linux), Xandros and any other distro leader out they're to get involved to make Linux a better place for the average user. It would be nice to be able to click on a ONE link to download a program/driver off the net and not have search though this list. I'm sorry but it's time for a change... It's hard for every day people install programs and It's a pain for developers to repackage there binaries over for each distro. If you have time people check out Fiorina: [com.com]
Linux not a threat to Microsoft
on cnet. You'll it under January 30, 2002 but there Fiorina talks about how we are fighting Microsoft, but she saying what I been trying to tell my friends all this time.

We need to build a better desktop and stop bitching about Microsoft. We need to put our time into something better besides bitching about Microsoft because the only way we can beat them is to build something cleaner, faster, easier and better then what they have now. So MandrakeSoft, Lycoris and Xandros you want the to be the king of the desktop well you better to start looking that the LSB 1.1 because you are not going to get anywhere with your just putting the newest KDE, GNOME and X11 on a CD and calling it Linux 8.x. I can tell you one thing I had a friend that switch back to Windows because it was as hell to install programs and to get his hardware configure. I was helping him maintain his system, but when I got busy with doing work on the weekends trying to help my friend out on this website I couldn't be their to help him with his system. The sad thing is I'm very happy to see that he switch back to Windows, hell I been using Linux for 2 1/2 years( no duel booting for 1 1/2 year ) and been thinking about it myself. I been paying for games/software and supporting the companies out there but it's not doing any good if you got some open source bigots are going to warez sites or newgrounds for close source software for Linux that's not GPL or FREE. Flame or mod me down if you like, I'm just saying what's on my mind. I'm a programmer for a CBT company and I love programming, but I got bills to pay. In the end it's all about money and what's the next big thing.

Binary standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2937992)

It appears to me that this is also defining a binary standard. For example, Posix standards ensure that a particular header file will include a symbol definition, but they don't specify exactly what that symbol's value must be. This works fine for a source code level standard, but could potentially require recompiling from source for each distribution.
Further, if I'm reading it right, this will standardize things like specific names in /dev for specific devices, etc.
OTOH, I don't have a feel for how often binary incompatibility issues actually show up in practice. I've hit some minor problems with ncurses.h, but that was across different o/s's (aix vrs linux). I'd be very interested in other developer's experiences.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?