Linux Standard Base 1.1 162
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."
posix? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:posix? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:2)
Re:posix? (Score:1)
Re:posix? (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
--G
Re:posix? (Score:2, Informative)
As pointed out, POSIX is all about making it easy to port source code and has nothing to do with binary compatibility or runtime issues like paths and libraries.
POSIX is also part of a greater set of standards called the Single UNIX Specification (SUS). If you meet the SUS specs and pay a fee, you can advertise your product as "UNIX", even if it's entirely reverse engineered.
Re:posix? (Score:1)
Re:posix? (Score:2)
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!
Re:posix? (Score:1)
Thats all well and good (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wired Article (Score:4, Informative)
would be great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:would be great (Score:2, Informative)
Distros are in but... (Score:1, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Distros are in but... (Score:1)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Distros are in but... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
The standard ISN'T about Linux (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The notion that this standard has much of anything to do with the Linux kernel is desparately ignorant of a reading of the standard.
Re:Distros are in but... (Score:2)
Package format (Score:5, Insightful)
Derek
Re:Package format (Score:1)
Re:Package format (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Package format (Score:1)
Care to enlighten me?
Re:Package format (Score:1)
Its easier to add RPM to Debian (for those packagers that only want to supply one binary) than the add
Re:Package format (Score:1)
Choose the right thing because of its own merit not because it is already pervasive.
Re:Package format (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
*install*
*install*
*install*
*ask question via debconf*
*install*
*install*
*ask another question*
*install*
*install*
*install*
*ask same question again*
*install*
*install*
etc...
Also
There were a couple of other features that
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 (Score:2, Informative)
The bugging questions is another issue. Personally I don't mind the questions. It IS possible however (as im sure your aware) to set the importance level of the questions. I don't know how many that could eliminate but it probably couldnt' be worse. dpkg probably also has a setting to always assume defaults.
Re:Package format (Score:2)
Re:Package format (Score:1)
You're right about the logging. I disagree about the previous versions of packages, i sometimes have four previous packages in apt's cache. Do you apt-get clean every time you upgrade?
Re:Package format (Score:2)
Re:Package format (Score:1)
Read the standard. (Score:3, Informative)
The ans wer is, by the way, that it doesn't affect Debian in any meaningful way.
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.
Re-read the standard. (Score:2)
I disagree.
* 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.
The standard mandates that RPM is the preferred packaging system for people creating applications to run on Linux. Debian;s LSB support is based on the existence of Alien. I don't know too many Debian people who would trust alien to install large parts of their system.
Re:Package format (Score:2)
Re:Package format (Score:1)
This is the Redhat Linux Standard Base, as witnessed by the complete stacking of board members in favour of Redhat, hence Debian and other non-rpm-based distributions can completely ignore this so-called "standard" and continue to distribute their technically superior distributions in peace while Redhat make the Redhat Linux Standard Base their next marketing tool. "Hey, we're compliant with our own standards, aren't we cool!". Hmm, sounds very familiar *cough*Microsoft*cough*
What is the point of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:1)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:What is the point of this? (Score:1)
FS layouts are part of SysV Layout [washington.edu] (of course you also have BSD Layout [washington.edu]).
I understand that *NIX variants with Sys V behaviors are largely inherited (Just their branch of the *NIX tree) but doesn't standarding on this behavior address some of this already. (Although maybe not libraries) I'm not arguing the points above -- I'm just looking for clarification
Re:What is the point of this? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is the point of this? (Score:1)
Where about standard include directories?
Trying to compile something on SuSE is a bitch.
It would be nice to have this addressed in a standard too, at least for kernel headers and "standard" include files.
Wee (Score:1, Offtopic)
After all, everyone knows that All your Linux Standard Base are belong to us.
Re:Wee (Score:2)
I don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
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 /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin (or vis versa).
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
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
"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.
Only a little off topic (Score:1)
LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:1)
Man, I agree with that!!!
Someone mod his comment up!!!
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:2)
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:2)
Wont they step all over one another? If i rpm -i xyz-1.0.0.rpm && apt-get install xyz; Who's to say I wont kill a dep. for xyz1.0.0?
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:2)
Implies not much about ".deb" (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Those who read the standards might have a clue (Score:4, Informative)
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" (Score:1)
Yes, it has happened to me, and that is what made me finally switch to debian.
Re:Implies not much about ".deb" (Score:3, Interesting)
LSB is a good thing and their shuld be equal input from everyone. But someone needs to push for adaptation. PHB's and Joe Sixpacks like hearing and seeing commercials like Mandrake Linux is compliant (it isn't but) with the LSB which means no matter where you buy or download your software it will work! I think the LSB folks need someone (besides Caldera or other only Linux companies.....a company with money) like IBM to put up money for a prize. The prize could be x amount of dollars go to the distro who fully complies with the LSB first. Y amount could go to the distro who is second and so on and so on. Everyone would bite, even Debian.
Have you read the standard? (Score:3, Informative)
For that matter, FreeBSD could comply with LSB without either:
Look at the standard; it specifies nothing about what OS kernel you are using.
Again, look at the standard. The set of package names to be managed by RPM, which runs on FreeBSD, is intentionally completely disjoint from any set of package names being managed "natively" by the distribution.
Careful reading of the standard shows that there is no requirement to be running Linux in order to conform with the standard. You could conceivably run some other kernel, like those from FreeBSD, NetBSD, Sun, SCO/Caldera. I'll bet it's at least theoretically possible that Windows NT with the "Unix emulation environment" could be made LSB-compliant.
I think you've missed the point of Debian (Score:1)
The things behind dpkg and all of that sure, they are nice, but how are they all that really different from RPM? I agree that I may not be totally clued in about all aspects of apt, dpkg and all of the other stuff Debian uses, but to say that it's so tied to a packaging format??? Debian is no more tied to it then Redhat is tied to RPM. If they are, then the Debian project made a major mistake!
Debian's primary advantage is that its packages are consistent. When you select a package, it comes with a very specific set of dependencies. That, and the fact that Debian is the source of the vast majority of .deb packages (especially the sort of "core" packages likely to come up in a dependency), mean they can get away with a lot of splitting up components, compiling platform-independent bits once and binaries many times (Debian isn't just an i386 distro like many others), shared libraries that get shared properly, and all sorts of other consistency stuff. Where a release-focused distro might concentrate on making all the packages in version 9.2 (say) work together nicely and consistently, Debian does a pretty good job of keeping all the packages consistent, all the time. (OK, so it doesn't always work 100% on 'unstable', but if you wanted stability you wouldn't be running that version anyway).
Maybe now is the time for Debian to actually form a company or form a different way of making the decisions instead of democracy.
The democracy/meritocracy structure is exactly what Debian is about - it's run by a non-profit org. called Software in the Public Interest. They don't exist to make a profit, or to make themselves popular - they exist to make a distribution of good software freely available.
Maybe they need to modify the DFSG to be more lienient?
And that would help how?
If it's free (free as in DFSG), it goes in 'main' and goes on the official CDs. If it's free as in DFSG but requires non-free software (like a GPLed "helper" application for PGP for instance), it goes in 'contrib'. If it's not free-as-in-DFSG (this includes shareware and closed-source freeware), it goes in 'non-free' - contrib and non-free are easily available over ftp or as the last CD in the set. If it's not in non-free, either nobody's tried packaging it, or Debian aren't sure if it would even be legal for them to distribute it.
Again, things like the DFSG are why Debian exists.
I don't know, but there has to be someone who is going to draw a line in the sand and get the volunteers in action and get Woody released (and with a 2.4 kernel as well...).
It looks like it'll be installed with a 2.2 kernel by default, and a 2.4 kernel as an option (fairly easy to install thanks to the magic of apt/dpkg - install, reboot, Lilo offers you a choice of kernel). Woody already includes precompiled 2.4.17 kernels for 386, Pentium, 686 (PPro/P2/P3/Celeron), K6 and K7 (Athlon/Duron), and that's just the i386 builds.
OTOH, if Debian was a company, where would all those volunteers be? Probably starting their own distro or doing Linux from Scratch.
PHB's and Joe Sixpacks like hearing and seeing commercials like Mandrake Linux is compliant (it isn't but) with the LSB which means no matter where you buy or download your software it will work!
This is why volunteer efforts like Debian have a niche. They don't like hearing and seeing commercials, they like giving people a stable OS. They're not trying to make a profit, which is why they can get away with doing what they feel is The Right Thing.
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:1)
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... (Score:2)
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:2)
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:2, Interesting)
I would not not want to take a step back by switching to
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:2)
Before you flame me, bother to learn a bit about the two packaging formats. More flexibility in applying patches (as many people can tell you, once you start mixing software from other distros/OSes, it's unavoidable), more robust in dependency handling (yes, rpm is better than deb in that respect. no, it's not rpm; it's the package maintainers. Get a clue.
And if you don't like Deb either, what do you prefer? A Ports tree? Well, me too, but I don't see it happening in the Linux world anytime soon...and I'm typing this on a Gentoo Linux machine, which has its nice Portage tree. The darn system is too far off from "standard" for stuff like StarOffice/prebuilt OpenOffice to run, as well as other prebuilt/binary-only apps.
I'd switch back to FreeBSD, but I like the possibility of running stuff like win4lin, and 3D.
Re:LSB 1.1....great....now someone... (Score:1)
Standards, well, are needed. (Score:1)
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
Re:Standards, well, are needed. (Score:1)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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):
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.
Re:Mandrake (Score:1)
If you don't like it why don't you switch it off (hint: menudrake).
I actually like the menu system (it's not a Mandrake's invention, it comes from Debian). To create a menu entry you just need to add a simple description of it to ~/.menu or
So, if you decide to keep Mandrake menus then don't create "symlinks all over the place" but just simply add one entry to ~/.menu (man menufile).
Mosfet's Liquid theme:
Get a Liquid Mandrake rpm from PLF.
Re:Mandrake (Score:1)
Actually, it would be even better if KDE/Gnome/WindowMaker et al would just agree on a single location for menu entry files. Then there wouldn't be a need for another package just to update menus. Seems like that would be a good thing for a standards document to specify, actually.
Re:Mandrake (Score:2)
Secondly as far as menu items is concerned, why not just use menudrake. With this you can set menu items for either global users or just for your own login. It's all point and click and it's quite easy to use. Then when you install new software, your custom buttons are there. I've used it to add all the star office icons as well as a set of shortcuts to my more heavily used folders. Works great. BTW This is all explained on their web site [linux-mandrake.com].
It's very strange... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Standard of RPM subset (Score:1)
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
I think it's time... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Which are the most conformant (Score:1)
I've seen comments that Mandrake is the most internationalised. Is this true. How do other distros such as Debian compare?
On the issue of internationalisation, how is that accomplished from a programming perspective? Most of my development work occurs under Windows, where it is very easy to switch between single byte, multi byte and Unicode at compile time (based on TCHAR definitions). It is also very easy to switch resource DLLs. How is this achieved under Linux? And, does Linux make use of code pages, or something similar when it's not using Unicode?
Re:Which are the most conformant (Score:1)
Re:Which are the most conformant (Score:1)
Ok does that mean... (Score:2)
if I wanted it included in a major distro?
Or does that mean that the distros will have to adapt the software to the standard?
Re:Ok does that mean... (Score:1)
When you install a Red Hat or a Mandrake,
/usr/local (Score:2, Informative)
That's exactly what /usr/local is for - locally compiled software. On most GNU and GNUish software the author sets it up to install to /usr/local by default, but you can do ./configure --prefix=/usr if you're building a distro package.
I don't know what other distros are like about this (I've only ever used Mandrake and Debian, and I didn't get experienced enough with Mandrake to know any of the internals), but Debian source packages come in two parts - a tarfile of original, unmodified source, plus a .diff.gz file containing the changes ("Debianizations") the Debian package maintaniner made to make it fit in with Debian conventions (moving all documentation to /usr/share/doc/name-of-the-package, for instance). If the original author's makefile or other code doesn't conform to Debian conventions, the maintainer will change it so it does.
For a program like you describe where (presumably) /usr/local/bin is hard-coded somewhere, the diff would include replacing that with /usr/bin - you, as an "upstream" developer, can probably make this easier by defining PREFIX to /usr/local and always referring to "$PREFIX/bin" and so on.
big names (Score:1)
Re:RSB (RPM Standards Base) (Score:3, Funny)
Would it actually be "GNU/RSB"?
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
Since we are talking about the LSB, maybe the
On the other hand, maybe a link to translate the post into $USER_PREFERED_LANGUAGE would be helpful, with a preset for the language, and a selection during the posting screen. Además, es agradable poder escribir y leer adentro otros lenguajes de vez en cuando, incluso si no son mi lenguaje primario. (Apologies to those more fluent than I, if I hacked that up a bit... I'm still a little rusty
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:2)
"so there in the future when we finish our warp-capable ships, we can all speak the same language (which Star Trek has shown us is English)"
You mean you didn't see the episode of Deep Space Nine where the Universal Translator (UT) took a while to figure out a new language? Star Trek isn't standardised on English, we just hear the English feed from the UT, although everybody speaks their own language.
"they should go ahead and formalize a standard language, too - Eurenglish"
No, they already have a language, it's called Esperanto. Not many people use it. The EU has official languages, three of them: Engish, French and the language of the current presidency. German translations are also normal in respect to them being the biggest country.
"Besides, since English has been formed by absorbing other languages and terms from other languages"
So have most languages. English has common roots with most other western European languages.
"Besides, "foreign" languages are just like encryption, and everyone knows that encryption is only used by criminals...
Isn't English a '"foreign" language' to most foreigners... perhaps making you a criminal!
"On the other hand, maybe a link to translate the post into $USER_PREFERED_LANGUAGE would be helpful, with a preset for the language, and a selection during the posting screen. "
An excellent suggestion.
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
Actually, I did... it just wasn't going to help my argument, so it got left out
>The EU has official languages, three of them: Engish, French and the language of the current presidency.
[snip]
> perhaps making you a criminal!
Perhaps since the U.S. doesn't have an official national language (requiring business and public schools to use English), I am a criminal by default... then again, maybe not...
Thanks for taking my lark of a post in such a good spirit... I tried to keep the sarcasm level down, but I'm not sure I did a good job there
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
What I don't like is people who accuse others of lack of intelligence due to the fact they don't write/speak perfect english. It's less common now, but a couple months ago every slashdot "user" was correcting everyone else's grammar and spelling and calling the person who made mistakes ignorant and what not. They didn't seem to realize that sometimes, people speak other languages and english may not be their first one.
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
I only wish I remembered more of my French from high school. I could sort of follow along reading the parent posts, but I'd be lost trying to listen to a native French speaker.
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
I've heard this claim too. The easiest language that I've tried to learn was Latin. Pretty easy to figure out pronunciation, and much more importantly: very regular. Irregularities are in the minority, so once the rules are learnt, it becomes much easier.
I recently saw an article in the newspaper about dyslexia. It claimed that the rate of dyslexia in Italy is far lower than Britian or France and they suspect that it is because Italian has far fewer phonetic sounds to learn. Presumably this means Italian is an easier language to learn.
"I only wish I remembered more of my French from high school. I could sort of follow along reading the parent posts"
I cheated and used the Babel fish.
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:1)
What, by the way, is your native (first) language?
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:2)
Re:Ce que je pense... (Score:2)
Re:i18n is easy. (Score:1)