If the lsb committies decide to add standards like desktop enviroments
to linux we should probably create several levels of lsb compliance. One
for the basics (the minimal linux) and others extending from there. If
we don't do this we could rule out some linux machines from being
considered linux (
--- Begin Message ---
> It's NOT. KDE is ugly as sin. Following Motif'ish styling clues to create
> an "environment" from which users get the impression of running a "blocky,
> clunky, slow" system. Even some of KDE's biggest supporters will admit
> that it's "bloated/slow" and the styling is n
--- Begin Message ---
Marcin Krol wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Greg S. Hayes wrote:
>
> > Desktops are a value added product
>
> Not at all. It's not seventies anymore. Now desktop (widely understood) is
> de facto part of OS.
>
But not all linux instal
The lsb should stay out of desktop standardization. Not all linux
implementations use desktops (or need them) and it would be a shame to
cut embedded servers and various linux implementations out of the linux
standard. Desktops are a value added product that should be handled by
the ISVs and distri
> UDI is irrelevant. The existing UDI semantics cannot express the Linux
> resource management or driver layering. Its also out of the lsb standard
> area completely (indeed conceptually you could probably hack freebsd
> around and produce a LSB compliant freebsd) since we care about services
> at
I was overjoyed at the appearance of the lsb, but now I am somewhat
dismayed at the lack of discussion on the mailing list... so to anyone
listening LETS START SOME!
First, I believe that the FHS is probably one of the most important
steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is
6 matches
Mail list logo
