Chris Lawrence wrote: >Nice to see the Open Group and X/Open are going to send us chasing our >tails trying to get this stuff together (so we can call our Linux >implementations "Linux" :-p) instead of pursuing Unix branding.
Indeed. I thought LSB was going to be an Application Environment specification - so that apps developed on one distribution would run on all the others. If that's still the case, I wanna know WTF they are thinking/smoking, specifying kernel locations, netstat, mount/umount, fdisk, setserial, disktab, adjtime, csh.login (!), fdprm, fstab, gettydefs (!!!), group, passwd, inittab, lilo, mtab, profile, securetty, exports, hosts, hosts.allow, hosts.deny, networks, printcap, protocols, services, rpc, /home, /lib/modules, /opt existing (conflicts with FHS), /root, clock, getty, init, update, mkswap, swapon, swapoff, telinit, shutdown, fsck, mkfs, ifconfig, route, /tmp cleaning, /usr/X386 (?!?), includes, g++, /usr/local/*, process accounting, utmp (ALL programs should use the wrapper), /var/spool/lpd, rwho, /var/tmp persistance, NIS, ALL OF THE DAMN MAJOR/MINOR NUMBERS FOR THE DEVICES, /usr/src, /usr/src/linux, compilers... *NO* well-behaved application should use/twiddle/tinker with ANY of the above. (Well, I could be wrong in a couple spots, but... wow.) P.S.: From where is /bin/domainname standard? I can see it's purpose in an app env standard, so I'm curious... -- Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses" -- Richard Gabriel
