Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Doug Beattie <dbb at beatties dot us>]

Jeff:

Thanks for you comments. We do appreciate your input. I wish we would
have heard back more on this topic late last year and again this
spring when these items were open for public review.

It would not only be nice, but very much appreciated, if the GCC group
had someone representing it regularly attend and participate in the
LSB-WG meetings; to give advice and also to participate in bringing
items into the specification that the GCC feels is ready for common
use.

Having a regular participant from the GCC may also allow for better
communication of intentions between the groups and a multi-community
understanding that would move things ahead instead of causing distruptions
that only end up slowing down the progress and acceptance of Linux
into areas where other systems have strong control.

As stated in "THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE Habit 5
 -- Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood"; If we all take 
some time to understand not only each of our points, but also what it
may take to allow Linux to have broader acceptance in the world, then
hopefully we can and will do the right things at the right moments so
larger goals can be achieved.

We know the GCC developers have done and are doing great things. We need
this. We also know that ISVs need something regarding C++ to get the ball
rolling so customers will have options to move towards Linux from other
systems. (This process takes a lot of time and must be started soon.)

The FSG and LSB are trying to do their best to balance a lot of wishes. We
open our meetings to all who wish to contribute in a positive way. We wish
to see more participation by those with the knowledge to drive things
ahead correctly.

We will be having face to face meetings immediated following Linux World
and hope that many will attend. (I believe Benjamin Kosnik is signed up.)
We need to plan now for the next few years and get the distros, ISVs, and
even end users. defining and working towards the same goals and similar
schedules so Linux adoption can become more prevalent.

Please, let's look at the bigger picture, realize where we are at, then
plan to move ahead (all working together) to achieve the greater purpose.

Doug

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:52:24AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 10:35, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > >> Given these developments, I think the FSG might want to re-think some of
> > >> their previous assumptions. If this means delaying the C++ bits of LSB
> > >> 2.0, then I think that is a step that should be honestly considered.
> > >> It's far better to have no specification than a flawed one.
> > >Maybe that's the recommendation we (the GCC developers) should make
> > >to FSG/LSB.  Delay the C++ bits until we can reach some kind of 
> > >agreement on what the right bits for the standard ought to be.
> > 
> > Sounds good to me. 
> > 
> > However, Ted Tso has proposed this already to the LSB working group. See:
> > http://mail.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-wg/2004-July/000233.html
> Well, we can still make the recommendation.  It's up to the
> FSG/LSB people to decide what to do with that recommendation.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsb-wg mailing list
> Lsb-wg@mail.freestandards.org
> http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-wg

--