– By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols –

Everyone agrees that the Free Standards Group’s goal of enhancing software compatibility between the Linux distributions, by using the new 1.1 version of the Linux Standard Base, is a good idea. Now, we’ll see if it actually happens.

In the short term, the idea is to have all LSB-compliant Linux distributions be able to install and run any LSB-complaint program. Eventually, this could lead to Linux program binary compatibility that would enable end-users to install software on
any Linux distribution as easily as they do Excel or Quicken on Windows.

John H. Terpstra, Caldera’s Open Source evangelist, is looking forward to all the Linux companies coming together to make a common Linux binary base because it “will bring sanity and unification to Linux that will encourage independent software vendors to port to the Linux platform.”

The LSB would do this by providing a full set of agreed-upon APIs, development environment, and certification package that will enable Linux independent software vendors (ISV)s to create programs that run on any LSB-certified Linux. This, in turn,
would improve the ISV’s time to market with new Linux software while decreasing development costs.

Thus, as Scott McNeil, the FSG’s executive director, says: “With written guidelines, test suites and build environments, the LSB and Li18nux (a FSG Linux internationalization initiative) create a foundation for language globalization of compliant distributions and applications will give application developers the tools they need to easily reach users world wide.”

It should come as no surprise then that many ISVs support the
LSB. For example, Raja Srinivasan, software architect of Oracle, thinks “LSB and
Li18nux provide a critical stability for Linux.” And, Jeremy Allison, a Samba project leader, believes that “the Linux Standards Base is the next stage needed in moving Linux into the enterprise to replace legacy systems.”

Linux leaders agree. From Linus Torvalds himself: “By using the same Open Source methodology and involving many of the same Free Software programmers, the LSB is a natural extension of Linux into the enterprise.” The LSB effort itself has such Linux/Open Source notables as Alan Cox, Eric Raymond and Theodore Tso
working and commenting on it.

Other service and hardware vendors who want to see Linux succeed commercially, like IBM, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, are also lending the LSB support.

But, for all this, the LSB is still a work in progress. Disagreements on such fundamentals as what should be placed, and what shouldn’t, in the /proc directory still happen. And the LSB Test Suite, while it made great progress in 2001, is still in beta.

Many Linux users also still misunderstand the LSB. The LSB demands that its compliant operating systems should have a select set of APIs, programs, directory framework and libraries. It does not, however, exclude other such programming constructs so long as they don’t conflict with LSB’s framework.

So, for example, on Slashdot recently, there was a discussion where some thought that because the LSB mandates the RPM program distribution package format for third-party software distribution, other such packages, like Debian’s DPKG, would no
longer be supported on LSB 1.1-compliant systems. That simply isn’t true, say FSG advocates. While it is possible, if LSB 1.1 becomes very popular, that non-LSB supported constructs like DPKG could fade into disuse, the LSB is about providing a minimal programming framework for third-party software, not excluding other frameworks.

Another problem is that, except for Caldera, LSB is seen as being more honored by lip service than by programming work by the Linux distribution companies. While the other major players, Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE and Turbolinux, are on board with LSB, some critics question their level of commitment to the standard. Only time will tell if LSB certification will become the key element in Linux’s commercial success or just another three-letter acronym on the box.

NewsFactor Network writes “As a sysadmin, I see OS X as a fantastic replacement for a UNIX workstation. But there are a few things Apple should think about if it really wants to compete in the UNIX space. I’m not saying that if OS X doesn’t have these things, UNIX people won’t look at it as an alternative. However, I believe that the following alterations would make OS X much more appealing as a replacement for current UNIX workstations.”

Anonymous Reader writes, “Subsequent to Lineo’s recent decision to divest itself of several
“non-core” product lines, the original founders of Rt-Control Inc.,
which was acquired by Lineo in February 2000, have formed a new company called Arcturus Networks. Rt-Control and its founders were notorious as the creators of the tiny uCsimm SBC and its companion (and now highly popular) Linux operating system, uClinux. To learn more about this new company formed by Rt-Control’s former founders, LinuxDevices.com spoke with Michael Durrant, one of the key founders of Arcturus Networks. Read the story at LinuxDevices.com.”

Anonymous Reader tells us about this story: http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0211.scale.html. “A long and sometimes bitter thread entitled ‘A Modest Proposal: We need a Patch Penguin’ has been the center of attention for many on the Linux kernel mailing list the past few weeks. (See Resources for the URL to join the list, but beware before subscribing, it has very high traffic.) Underlying the debates on the best methods and/or tools to improve the kernel hacking process is a more troubling question: can Linus Torvalds continue to successfully lead Linux development?”

NewsFactor Network writes, “Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, appeared in a penguin suit at a meeting of financial analysts recently, hoping to show his company’s support for Linux and introduce new server offerings aimed at the lower end of the server spectrum. Sun may be feeling the heat as IBM begins to eat into its market in the server space. IBM’s marketing engine has played up the difference between Sun’s Enterprise 10,000 series mainframe-sized servers and its own large RS/6000 offerings.” Read more at osOpinion.com.

Timothy R. Butler writes, “OfB.biz’s Steven Hatfield takes a look at how his mother, who uses much of the same functionality on her computer as an office worker, migrated to Linux. Was the switch-over successful? Find out at OfB.biz.”

“I’m pleased to announce the release of StandaloneZODB, the Python
object persistency system also known as the Z Object Database. ZODB
is the object-oriented database underlying Zope; the StandaloneZODB
project’s goal is to provide those same facilities to non-Zope related
Python applications.”

From:	 barry@zope.com (Barry A. Warsaw)
To:	 python-announce-list@python.org
Subject: RELEASED - StandaloneZODB 1.0 final
Date:	 Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:44:33 -0500


I'm pleased to announce the release of StandaloneZODB, the Python
object persistency system also known as the Z Object Database.  ZODB
is the object-oriented database underlying Zope; the StandaloneZODB
project's goal is to provide those same facilities to non-Zope related
Python applications.

Today we are releasing StandaloneZODB 1.0 final.  A brief description
of the changes since release candidate 1 is outlined below.

StandaloneZODB is based on the same code as the ZODB in Zope, albeit
on a separate release branch.  Its inspiration comes from Andrew
Kuchling's StandaloneZODB project on SourceForge.  While there are
still some differences, the Standalone 1.0 release is the first on the
path toward convergence.  Subsequent releases should complete the
merge of Andrew's and Zope Corporation's packages.

The StandaloneZODB release includes the following components:

    - Core ZODB, including the persistence machinery
    - Standard storages such as FileStorage
    - Supporting modules such as ExtensionClass
    - The persistent BTrees modules
    - ZEO
    - Experimental Berkeley storages
    - Some documentation <wink>

See the README file for details on building and installing
StandaloneZODB.  For details on using ZODB, see Andrew's included user
guide.

StandaloneZODB 1.0 is released under the ZPL 2.0.  It should be
compatible with all Python versions from Python 2.1 to Python 2.2.  It
may or may not work with versions earlier than Python 2.1.

Download StandaloneZODB-1.0 from:

    http://www.zope.org/Products/StandaloneZODB

and visit the StandaloneZODB Wiki page at:

    http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/StandaloneZODB

See also:

    http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/FrontPage

for more information about our long-range ZODB plans.

Enjoy,
-Barry

Barry A. Warsaw
Zope Corporation, Pythonlabs
barry@zope.com

-------------------- snip snip --------------------
What's new in StandaloneZODB 1.0 final?
Release date: 08-Feb-2002
=======================================

All copyright notices have been updated to reflect the fact that the
ZPL 2.0 covers this release.

Added a cleanroom PersistentList.py implementation, which multiply
inherits from UserDict and Persistent.

Some improvements in setup.py and test.py for sites that don't have
the Berkeley libraries installed.

A new program, zeoup.py was added which simply verifies that a ZEO
server is reachable.  Also, a new program zeopack.py was added which
connects to a ZEO server and packs it.

-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-announce-list

LinuxSecurity Contributor writes, “The chroot() function can be a powerful mechanism to secure your system, but only if used
correctly. Anton provides a good foundation for implementing it in your programs and services
running on your system.”
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/feature_stories/featu re_story-99.html

John Buswell writes, “TuxPPC has done it again. We have Linux running on the new iMac G4. You can find an initial installation guide here, complete with photos of Linux running on the iMac. Including cat /proc/cpuinfo!! We have also put up some pictures of the iMac G4 here. This is just an initial guide, we will be testing and tweaking patches this week to improve support for the iMac G4.”

Net-security.org has the article. “In the following article I’ll discuss, in brief, compiling of a new kernel, or an old one, which ever pleases you most, on a example of the upcoming kernel 2.4.0, by using the 2.4.0-test9 version, and some references on new and improved firewalling implemented in it, called iptable.
“