by The really _hilarious_ part about LSB is that, at least in the latestQuote:> Please read about the LSB. It would do you well to first understand
> something you are arguing about, and the direction it's leading for
> Linux distributions abroad.
iteration, it no longer forcibly has the slightest bit to do with that
operating system by the guy with a funny name from Finland.
Pointedly, the standards in LSB have nothing to with any particular OS
kernel. They assortedly reference:
- POSIX standards
- ANSI standards
- IEEE standards
- ISO standards
- Open Group standards
Many of which are the basis for _implementing_ an OS kernel, but none
of which are forcibly derived from the one purported to be what the
standard is about.
In effect, it's sort of like NCR. At one time, NCR stood for
"National Cash Register." Today, it doesn't. It stands for "NCR,"
and attempts to claim any forcible relationship between NCR and cash
registers or anything particularly "national" would be exceedingly
silly.
In much the same way, claiming that LSB has any more or less
affiliation with Solaris than it does with FreeBSD, both of which are
systems that will likely be able to conform to the standard, despite
not starting with the letter "L", is very silly.
I see the _main_ impact of LSB being that vendors like Caldera, Sun,
HP, IBM (and perhaps QNX Systems, WindRiver, BSDMall, and perhaps,
being the _vastly_ entertaining option, _Microsoft_) should be able to
claim that their assorted OSes (that pointedly do not contain the
letter "L") conform to LSB and can be used as platforms to that end.
Note that in all of the above, I never mentioned the name of the
kernel that perhaps once had something to do with the intent of LSB,
but clearly, by the specs, is quite irrelevant to LSB.
--
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html
"Please, Captain. Not in front of the Klingons."
-- Leonard Nimoy as Spock in Star Trek V, The Final Frontier