Mon 5 Jun 2006
Here are some of the notes I took from the LSB Summit. More to follow.
What is the LSB?
It is an organization dedicated to making Linux and open platforms more competitive as an ISV development platform. The idea to have a franchise modeled platform where the LSB provides the base standards and distros, upstream, etc. are franchise which implement these recommendations. The franchises then decide what goes into the next version of the LSB. The base standards give ISV’s comfort with working within the platform. Where appropriate ISV’s can go to individual distros for further certification outside the LSB’s scope.
Thoughts on what makes a good ISV platform.
* Broad Scope
* Predictability and Stability
- Obtain ABI stability for Linux
* Developer Friendly
- They have MSDN, we have Google – not nearly good enough
- Newbies get scared
LSB Dates
LSB 3.1 (April 2006)
LSB 3.2 (Q2 2007)
LSB 4.0 (2008)
Issues
* GCC 4.1 libstdc++ v7
* glibc 2.4
* Language runtimes (Perl, Python, Java?)
* cross desktop (GNOME/KDE) interoperability
- freedesktop.org
- portland
* I18n (font management, input methods)
* Accessibility
- can’t be bolted on
* Multimedia
- Making it just work
* Packaging
- Portable packaging?
- Integrates with native packaging
* Printing
* Wine?
Other issues
* Improving testsuites
* Project infrastructure
* Franchised developer/certification programs
* Binary compatibility over time
* How does the LSB interface with all the key stakeholders?
- Distros, projects, ISV’s
Some ISV musings
* compile once and run anywhere would be nice
* ISV’s can’t always control what their vendors are using (i.e. some inhouse fork of a distro)
Some Distro musings
* need better tests which work on all their supported platforms
* don’t want standards which overly complicate the platform
Some Upstream musings
* doesn’t want standard pushed on them
* wants to figure out how to work with ISVs
June 6th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Want to please the ISVs? Make sure the Linux kernel gets a driver ABI.
The ABI does not need to be stable, but it does need to exist. Even if the ABI was changing every month, ISVs would still be in a better shape than we are today. I’m unfortunately not kidding.
Once Linux gets a driver ABI like Windows or Mac OS, regular users will stop having to compile kernel modules to play with their latest gadgets. You read that right: “regular users” and “compile” in the same sentence. That is what we have today. Once we get rid of that hurdle, IHV and ISV will come en masse to Linux.
Apparently the hardcore kernel hackers are not interested in tackling this unsexy task. Should the LSB handle it then?
For a more detailed explanation of the above, read http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2006/02/28/384-the-deep-secret-of-the-windows-oem-licensing#c1540
June 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
This is not the LSB’s call. They do not set standards only say what has been agreed to be a standard. It is also a place where we talk about issues such as this. However, the Kernel is getting ABI stability in terms of a subset of interfaces which will be marked as stable.
As for playing with the latest gadgets, if you are compiling kernel modules these days it has less to do with ABI stablility than playing with stuff that has not been given time to mature. That or you are refering to graphics drivers and I am not going to get into that argument.