Talk:Linux Standard Base
|WikiProject Linux||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
relation to IEEE POSIX / SUS
So, is LSB part of IEEE POSIX / SUS or is LSB competely separate from IEEE POSIX / SUS ? If a programmer states that he works with IEEE POSIX / SUS systems, would that include Linux too or would he have to add that he has experience with LSB systems apart from IEEE POSIX / SUS ?
- LSB includes by reference the Single Unix Specification. The reverse is not true. Daniel Quinlan 13:39, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that starting the article with 'critisism' is somehow wrong. Critisism is better off being down below, since otherwise it'll make it all look a lot worse. Just my two cents....
- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 21:10, Sept 17, 2006
- If you look here you'll see it's CC-BY-SA. bufalo_1973 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article used conclusion that Linux is not the operating system, as it is counted in computer science, because it is a monolith kernel and not a microkernel. The LSB standard was designed for Linux Operating System to avoid fragmenting it, when it is used OS on a different software systems (distributions). The LSB standard rules what libraries and system applications (versions) a software system need to include, so the closed source applications could be designed for Linux operating system. LSB sures that applications could run on different distributions (software systems) as designed, without worrying different versions of system softwares. http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf The article should be written as LSB and computer science definates the operating system and so on the Linux as the OS.
In a horrible state just is LSB's online presence is
This article is on WikiProject Linux but I am offended I see little edits like `s/ ISO / International Organization for Standardization /g` in the article's history, yet...
1/ It's outdated:
- all deep links at "linuxfoundation.org"
redirect to linuxfoundation.org home page full of marketspeak-laced press releases and blogs;
just a dead link NXDOMAIN (and the 2nd level, freestandards.org redirects to linuxfoundation.org).
2/ It doesn't serve its purpose well:
- "ISO standard" section lists every single part of the spec for every single architecture (is that necessary?)
- all links to costly (~190+ Euro) PDFs at the ISO Catalogue, followed by a reference to ISO Publicly Available Standards (server directory listing with .zip-ed files, an attempt to download it leads to License agreement warning user that (s)he is 'about to download a document protected by copyright law').
I suggest just listing mentioning ISO number for each specified architecture, with both links to the Abstract in the Catalogue and direct links to the .zip (informing users it's a PDF in a ZIP and that they don't have to pay for just reading it).
I think most people come to see the WP page to get to know what it is and what it is for, and to get the thing itself (because it's a standard and a FOSS standard).
- This WP article just deviates from the common structure most nominated articles have:
Details on what LSB specifies are very limited, version history too detailed, yet no information on the standard's origin and formation and motivation behind it.
Wikipedia readers should be informed about the abysmal state of matters concerning Linux 'Standard' Base. A reader should easily find out the standard is copyright protected and hardly accessible, and given clearest instructions which will lead him/her to the standard itself with least hassle possible because (s)he has a right to at least download a copy.
Criticism section should be expanded with something explaining that it seems Linux Foundation basically doesn't care about LSB or anything, judging from their web presence at least (once a reputable source of such a dispute is found).
I'm also in hope someone at Linux Foundation will notice WP article mentions in what sad shape their own web presence is.
Do you know why it has decayed so much?
I have little time and done no big edits on WP but will do it one day even if it meant no sleep.
I appologize for being socially inept and confrontational.
I haven't edited the article yet because of no feedback received yet. This talk page entry should also serve myself as an outline.
My first edits of this article will be small and incremental. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)