Morten Nilsen wrote:

And what, pray tell, is LSB?

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB

<quote>

About the Linux Standard Base (LSB)

The Linux Standard Base delivers interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system. Currently all major distributions comply with the LSB and many major application vendors, like MySQL, RealNetworks and SAP, are certifying. The LSB offers a cost-effective way for application vendors to target multiple Linux distributions while building only one software package. For end-users, the LSB and its mark of interoperability preserves choice by allowing them to select the applications and distributions they want while avoiding vendor lock-in. LSB certification of distributions results in more applications being ported to Linux and ensures that distribution vendors are compatible with those applications. In short, the LSB ensures Linux does not fragment.

If you are an end user looking for Linux distributions that support open standards, please see our list of LSB certified products https://www.linux-foundation.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb.

If you are a developer looking to build portable Linux applications that will work on these distributions, please see the Linux Developer Network http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Developers.</quote>

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:06 AM, GS R gsrlinux@gmail.com wrote:

Morten Nilsen wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

Just to see if it matters to ppl if it matters to be certified.

And what, pray tell, is LSB?

Linux Standard Base (LSB)* - http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB*

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb

Nicholas wrote:

Correction:

RHEL 5 is LSB 3.1. Does this mean CentOS 5 is automatically LSB 3.1?

Yes. But we may not call it so, as CentOS is *not* certified by the Linux Foundation. But the LSB tests should run without any problem on

If anyone wants to sponsor that - feel free to contact the CentOS team, as the fees are pretty high:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Fee_Schedule

And the product has to be retested after each maintenance release (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) ...

But you could also donate that kind of money to the CentOS project if you want to express how you feel about CentOS :)

Cheers,

Ralph

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

...

Correction:

RHEL 5 is LSB 3.1. Does this mean CentOS 5 is automatically LSB 3.1?

Yes. But we may not call it so, as CentOS is *not* certified by the Linux Foundation. But the LSB tests should run without any problem on

If anyone wants to sponsor that - feel free to contact the CentOS team, as the fees are pretty high:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Fee_Schedule

And the product has to be retested after each maintenance release (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) ...

To be honest, I think that is where we are different from RHEL.

If you need absolute assurance that CentOS is LSB certified on paper before corporate management, buy RHEL entitlements and drop CentOS.

If you can live with CentOS and do not need the added value from Red Hat (support, EAL/LSB certification, legal indemnification for IP infringement, hardware/software certification) stick with CentOS.

But if your business relies on CentOS, your business relies on Red Hat as well. There is at least a moral duty to think what that is worth to your business and act accordingly.

Herrold,

I meant RH, in terms of the RHEL distro. I look forward to have centos gain the LSB, what is needed for the pass thru? is the main CentOS community interested?

As for the rest, thank you for the sharing of info.

The LSB should be concern to encourage developers to built stuff that can be used across distros. LSB should reduce problems of desktop users who have been finding difficulty in getting stuff like printer drivers and other paraphernalia. The more distros adopting LSB then more developers/manufacturers will be encouraged on the use of LSB.

R P Herrold wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Nicholas wrote:

...

Would anyone know if CentOS 4 and 5 is LSB certified?

We have been offered a pass through the process by the LSB, but there has not been demand for it.

...

I have not found any info on RH being LSB certified either. Is RH also LSB certified?

One assumes you mean 'RHEL'? Distribution releases, and not companties, are certified. You need to go check the LSB site more closely -- the answer is clearly there.

-- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

Join OSCC MAMPU Mailing Lists http://lists.oscc.org.my/mailman/listinfo/oscc-discuss

---

Join OSCC MAMPU Mailing Lists http://lists.oscc.org.my/mailman/listinfo/oscc-discuss

on 6-18-2008 6:55 AM Johnny Hughes spake the following:

Nicholas wrote:

...

Herrold,

I meant RH, in terms of the RHEL distro. I look forward to have centos gain the LSB, what is needed for the pass thru? is the main CentOS community interested?

As for the rest, thank you for the sharing of info.

The LSB should be concern to encourage developers to built stuff that can be used across distros. LSB should reduce problems of desktop users who have been finding difficulty in getting stuff like printer drivers and other paraphernalia. The more distros adopting LSB then more developers/manufacturers will be encouraged on the use of LSB.

Well .. I have run the latest testing scripts and CentOS-5.1 passes the 3.1 LSB for Core and Desktop.

It does not pass the 3.2 LSB tests yet (neither does RHEL-5).

I will work with Russ to see if I can get CentOS certified without paying $20,000.00 a year to make it happen.

If we have to pay for this, well we can't be certified.

Note, only one version of Ubuntu (6.0.6 LTS) and no Debian or Fedora versions are certified.

Thanks, Johnny Hughes

I really believe that any "standards" organization that charges that much is just extorting money for a small perceived benefit. If it passes the testing scripts, that should be enough for a "free" distribution. Microsoft does the same thing for its "certified" drivers. They charge an extortion fee for the service.

on 6-26-2008 11:40 PM Nicholas spake the following:

Wow!

Thats a lot of money. The Pass thru mentioned, does it also mean that payment need to be made?

I wonder what is the purpose of them charging so much?

That is probably their only source of income since they don't really "sell" or manufacture anything.

Rudi Ahlers wrote:

Sorry to ask this, but what exactly is the LSB? What will CentOS (and probably) the community gain from it? I mean, apart from RedHat Enterprise, Suse Enterpise and the other commercial Linux's, most other linuxes are not certified AFAIK.

I know CentOS stands out above the rest in many areas, and is very close to RedHat, in many aspects. But won't a certification shove it into the commercial software "class"

LSB or Linux Standard Base, is a way of assuring VARs, developers and contractors that the Linux systems that are certified under this all have a standard file system structure and contain a defined set of minimum system utilities.

This way when they write software they can be rest assured that if the system is LSB certified that it will contain the 'bash' utility, that utility will be in /usr/bin, man pages will be in /usr/share/man, etc.

This way they only have to write 1 set of installation packages and not a separate package for each Linux distribution they wish to develop for.

-Ross

______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.

Its not a matter of licensing.

Since the days of various Linux distros, coming up with diff schemes made it difficult for developers to target a Linux. Hence the need to give the source, go compile in your own system mentality. This puts off many non techie ppl.

Just imagine when a driver or application can be packaged irregardless of the linux distro and it doesnt need a technical person to install. Wont this makes it easier for entry into Linux? for end-user and developers?

Rudi Ahlers wrote:

Ross S. W. Walker wrote:

...

Rudi Ahlers wrote:

...

Sorry to ask this, but what exactly is the LSB? What will CentOS (and probably) the community gain from it? I mean, apart from RedHat Enterprise, Suse Enterpise and the other commercial Linux's, most other linuxes are not certified AFAIK.

I know CentOS stands out above the rest in many areas, and is very close to RedHat, in many aspects. But won't a certification shove it into the commercial software "class"

LSB or Linux Standard Base, is a way of assuring VARs, developers and contractors that the Linux systems that are certified under this all have a standard file system structure and contain a defined set of minimum system utilities.

This way when they write software they can be rest assured that if the system is LSB certified that it will contain the 'bash' utility, that utility will be in /usr/bin, man pages will be in /usr/share/man, etc.

This way they only have to write 1 set of installation packages and not a separate package for each Linux distribution they wish to develop for.

-Ross

---

Cool, thanx for the explanation :) I suppose it doesn't change the licensing at all.

;)

Yes, thats another problem.

Les Mikesell wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

...

Its not a matter of licensing.

Since the days of various Linux distros, coming up with diff schemes made it difficult for developers to target a Linux. Hence the need to give the source, go compile in your own system mentality. This puts off many non techie ppl.

Just imagine when a driver or application can be packaged irregardless of the linux distro and it doesnt need a technical person to install. Wont this makes it easier for entry into Linux? for end-user and developers?

That sounds nice, but it would be a lot more believable if we hadn't already been through several version of LSB specs without any such thing happening.

---

Join OSCC MAMPU Mailing Lists http://lists.oscc.org.my/mailman/listinfo/oscc-discuss

Rudi Ahlers wrote:

Sure, it will make the transition smoother for gamers, sound engineers, etc who need those extra drivers, but how would it work for the different distro's? I mean, if we have CentOS LSB, and the directory & file structure is standard complaint, does it mean other distro's will need todo that as well, or will it mean that hardware developers will only write their drivers for the specific distro's which are LSB complaint?

LSB doesn't do squat for drivers as there's no binary compatibility at all between even different sub-level revisions of the kernel. the kernel team has pretty much ensured that binary driver compatibility will never happen... the attitude is that all drivers should be source code and should be managed by the kernel team, however, this flies in the face of hardware that requires extensive trade secrets be exposed in the driver sources. some vendors have met this in the middle with a half-open driver model (nvidia for example) where their core intellectual property is hidden in a binary module thats linked with an outer source code driver 'wrapper'