Group to Divide Linux Standards Base eWeek has an article which is discussing how the Linux Standards Base (LSB) wants to move away from a single standard and move towards a modularized version that will break things down into modules that are required.
The next release of LSB 3.0 is planned for later this quarter, and LSB 4.0 is scheduled for release in the later part of 2006.
For anyone who read the
post on the LPI exam they will recognize the fact that LPI bases their exam on what the LSB posts. This will bring up some interesting possibilities for what LPI can do with their exam over the longer term.
Looking towards another idea to pull from the article is the fact the LSB is trying to maintain a set standard that applications and vendors need to maintain to ensure the future stable growth of Linux into the corporate environment. Corporate entities have complained that there seems to be a fragmentation within what is available within the open-source community. The LSB hopes to answer these questions."
###########################################
UPDATE
Slashdot has picked up on the article and for the most part people are scratching their heads as to why should there be a single set of standards associated with Linux. One person did have some good comments...
"
LSB defines a set of libraries and applications that will be present on all LSB compatible distributions/installations. It specifies things like kernel version, libc version, etc. so that a commercial application provider can say that "This application is certified to work with LSB 1.x" instead of "This application is certified to work on redhat 7.2, and may work on debian 2.2, suse 8.0 and possibly other installiations that have kernel 2.4.x, glibc 2.y, and foobar 3.0"
What they are talking about doing now is adding optional components to the LSB. That way an application provider can say for example "This product is certified with LSB2.x + LSB Webserver 1.y" without having to add a web server as part of the LSB and thus requiring it to be installed on non-server computers. Likewise the current LSB defines few (if any) X toolkits, libraries, applications, etc. so
in order to say that a commercial desktop application will run on any LSB certified platform, providers would have to statically link a lot of libraries that are already present on most desktop linux machines because the LSB doesn't include them. Also, as the article points out,
there is a lot of interest in having Java be part of the standard, but so far they have not made it required because of the licensing issues. This way, Java installations could be standardized but made part of a separate module so that they would not be required for all LSB compliant installations. "