OSNews

I would really welcome this. Coming from a BSD environment, it's no matter, for example, if you are on FreeBSD, on PC-BSD or on DesktopBSD. All of them have the same base OS beneath any additional stuff. This is how the BSDs keep it: Have a basic OS ("just the OS") and let the user install what he needs, or put it preconfigured onto the OS as installed packages ("everything else"). I think Linux does this different: It's the business of the distributors what software they include, for exmaple, if they consider awk to be in the "base OS" (allthough Linux does not have something like the "base OS") or not. Get me right: That's nothing bad per se, so I won't say "it's Linux' problem", but just the way it is done. There are different directory structures, different places where installed applications go, different package managers and different concepts (e. g. system startup). With a good LSB, you simply can rely on the presence of certain commands, functionalities or interfaces, you don't need to check each required one manually.

A LSB that can be followed by the creators of a distributions is a very good step. As it has been mentioned before, it will make the life of programmers, technicans and administrators more happy. And, of course, if you're making a "niche Linux distribution", you don't need to comply with the LSB requirements. It may be seen as a kind of "quality certificate" which will, in my opinion, help Linux getting more usage share, and oh joy oh market share. :-)