LSB compatible Samba ?

Selcuk Ozturk sozturk at
Tue Jul 3 13:01:33 GMT 2001

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Ah... it's unforgivable to be unwilling to abandon a technically-superior
> > > system that has been in use for almost as long as (if not longer than) rpm has
> > > been in existence?
> > Yeah, that's right - keep those Giraffes burning (with
> > apologies to Salvador Dali :-). End users like my mum
> > *really* care about stuff like that. After all, that's
> > *much* more important than being able to install end-user
> > applications on a Linux system isn't it.....
> But there are Linux users around who *don't* care about Linux's penetration
> of the desktop market and *do* care about the quality of the packaging system.
> Debian, of course, has a much higher than average percentage of these people.
> And don't they have the right?  Isn't the "Linux revolution"<tm> about freedom
> -- including the freedom to be a technology hermit?  Or have we as users given
> that up now in order to get a bigger piece of the desktop?
Standardization by definition, means giving up some of the freedom
for possible gain. But, nobody enforces you to follow the standard. 
You are completely free to be hermit and configure your own Linux
however you like. Nobody can take that away given GPL. 

What you are talking here is not about freedom as you are free to do
as you wish with your own Linux. You are talking about how others
should be or must be free according to you. If you don't care about
penetration, desktop market and all the other hoped for gains from
standardization, why do you care about LSB? It has nothing to do with

> > That's why Linux is *so* dominent on end users desktops,
> > because end users really care about having multiple packaging
> > formats so they can argue about their technical superiority.
> > That's much more important than having lots of third party
> > apps, all of which seamlessly install.
> > After all, if they want applications, then "let them use
> > Windows" (with apologies to Marie Antionette :-) :-).
> So how much freedom and technical superiority are all Linux users expected to
> give up in order to accomodate the desire to make the OS appealing to
> end-users?  And if we sacrifice freedom and technical superiority, what's left
> that makes Linux different from Windows?
> I understand and sympathize with the desire expressed by many who work for
> Linux vendors that Linux be able to take over the desktop market as soon as
> possible.  But if that comes at the expense of the very things that make Linux
> a worthwhile proposition for the users, then I'm ok with seeing the desktop
> market grow at a slower pace.
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer

Selcuk Ozturk

More information about the samba-technical mailing list