ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   08 Jul 2001  23:38:01
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/0704/
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
              Bringing you the latest news from the Linux World.
    Dedicated to keeping Linux users up-to-date, with concise news for all
                                  interests
    
    Sections:
     Main page
     [3]Security
     [4]Kernel
     [5]Distributions
     [6]On the Desktop
     [7]Development
     [8]Commerce
     [9]Linux in the news
     [10]Announcements
     [11]Linux History
     [12]Letters
    [13]All in one big page
    
    Other LWN stuff:
     [14]Daily Updates
     [15]Calendar
     [16]Linux Stocks Page
     [17]Book reviews
     [18]Penguin Gallery
    
     [19]Archives/search
     [20]Use LWN headlines
     [21]Contact us
    
    TUCOWS.com:
     [22]linux.tucows.com
     [23]Ext2
     [24]Themes
    
    Recent features:
    - [25]Gael Duval
    - [26]Kernel Summit
    - [27]Singapore Linux Conference
    - [28]djbdns
    - [29]LinuxWorld NY
    - [30]Jason Haas
    - [31]Larry Wall
    - [32]Bruce Momjian
    - [33]2000 Timeline
    - [34]Eric Raymond
    - [35]LWN coverage of Comdex 2000
    - [36]Ransom Love
    - [37]Guido van Rossum
    - [38]Paul Everitt
    - [39]Embedded Systems Conference
    - [40]Embedded Linux Consortium
    - [41]OLS Coverage
    
    Here is the [42]permanent site for this page.
    
    See also: [43]last week's LWN.
    
 Leading items and editorials
 
    A challenge for the free software community. One frequently-heard
    criticism of free software is that it lacks innovation. According to
    this claim, the free software development process can do well at
    reimplementing others' good ideas, but is not able to produce those
    good ideas itself. Free software advocates dismiss that criticism with
    plenty of counterexamples. But it still hurts a bit sometimes. There
    is currently an opportunity, however, for the community to show what
    it can do. A challenge which should be accepted if we want to remain
    in control of our computing future.
    
    That challenge, of course, is Microsoft's ".NET" initiative, and the
    HailStorm component in particular. HailStorm is Microsoft's bid to be
    the intermediary in authentication and business transactions across
    the net. If the company has its way, everybody will have a Microsoft
    "Passport," which will be required to be visible on the net. The
    protocols behind this system will be "open" (based on standards like
    XML and SOAP), but Microsoft will hold the copyrights and decide what
    is acceptable.
    
    It is interesting to note that these protocols have been explicitly
    designed to be independent of little details like which operating
    system you're running. Microsoft is saying, essentially, that, at this
    level of play, who owns the desktop is no longer important. Linux
    could yet conquer the desktop, but lose the net.
    
    Scattered responses have been seen across the community, including
    .NET implementations, talk of a free C# compiler, or a "dotGNU"
    framework. But these are catching-up actions. There is little new
    there; it is more an effort to keep up with what Microsoft is doing.
    That approach should be seen as a serious mistake. It is time for the
    free software community to take the lead.
    
    Doing so will require the presentation of an alternative proposal.
    What is needed is a compelling vision of how we will deal with each
    other on the net of the future. The community needs to design a
    framework which handles tasks like authentication and transactions,
    but which meets a number of goals that may not be high on Microsoft's
    agenda:
      * The full set of protocols which implement this framework must be
        open, with an open development and extension process.
      * No one company or institution should be indispensable to the
        operation of the framework. No company or institution should be
        able to dictate the terms under which anybody may participate in
        life on the net.
      * Security and privacy must be central to the framework's design.
        All security protocols must be open and heavily reviewed.
      * The framework must bring the net toward its potential as the
        ultimate communication channel between people worldwide, and it
        must allow the creation of amazing new services and resources that
        we can not yet imagine.
        
    The success of the Internet is due to a great many things, but one
    aspect, in particular, was crucial: nobody's permission is required to
    place a new service or protocol in service on the net. Where would we
    be now if Tim Berners-Lee had been required to clear the World-Wide
    Web through a Microsoft-controlled standards process - and let
    Microsoft copyright the protocols too? Any vision of the net of the
    future must include the same openness to be acceptable.
    
    The free software community could generate that vision, but it is
    going to have to set itself to the task in a hurry. It is also, for
    better or for worse, going to need some serious corporate involvement.
    Companies are needed to help fund the development of a new set of
    network standards, make sure they meet corporate needs, and, frankly,
    to insure that it is all taken seriously. There should be no shortage
    of companies with an interest in a net that is nobody's proprietary
    platform. It is time for them to step up and help with the creation of
    a better alternative.
    
    The community needs to act here. Playing a catch-up role in the design
    of the net of the future is no way to assure freedom, or even a whole
    lot of fun. Large-scale architectural design is hard to do in the free
    development mode, but we need to figure out how to do it well. Either
    that, or accept the criticism that we can't really innovate.
    
    The Linux Standard Base, version 1.0, is out. The release happened
    with surprisingly little fanfare (none, actually) on June 29. We have
    since gotten [44]an announcement of sorts from the Free Standards
    Group's Scott McNeil, but the group was clearly more focused on the
    work itself than publicity.
    
    This is, regardless, an important moment. The Linux Standard Base
    project was conceived in early 1998, with the [45]proposal and call
    for participation coming out of a Linux Expo BOF at the end of May.
    Some of the conceptual roots, however, had some out a little earlier
    when Bruce Perens [46]proposed a new Linux distribution which shared a
    number of goals with the LSB - in particular, an open, non-commercial
    reference implementation of the system known as Linux.
    
    The LSB was endorsed at the May 30, 1998 Linux International meeting.
    Its goals included:
    
      Rather than require uniformity among distributions, it will define
      only what is required to boot a system and run an application. The
      goal will be to build a reference platform quickly, within a two
      month time-frame, that will be open-source and available to the
      community. After that, work will begin on a paper standard,
      estimated to take approximately two years.
      
    Those were optimistic times, of course; in reality, things didn't
    happen so quickly. Under Bruce Perens' leadership the project got off
    to a bit of a rocky start, with some serious differences of opinion
    over priorities - not everybody agreed with Bruce's desire to start
    with a reference implementation. Bruce's tenure as the leader of the
    LSB was relatively short, but the project seemed to languish for much
    longer. It is only in the last year that it appears to have gotten
    serious and finished out the task.
    
    Appearances do not tell the entire story, however. The LSB is a
    complicated specification, and much of the necessary background work
    was not immediately visible to outsiders. Other parts of the LSB, such
    as the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), have been available for a
    long time and have already influenced the development of most
    distributions. The LSB may have taken longer than desired, unlike most
    other software projects, but the delays do not indicate a lack of
    effort or interest.
    
    The real purpose of the LSB was, and is, this: to allow the packaging
    of an application such that it would be installable on any compliant
    distribution. The vast number of Linux distributions is a great wealth
    for the user community, but it does present challenges for application
    vendors. The LSB should make it possible for vendors to support all
    compliant distributions with a single package. Application vendors
    like that sort of thing.
    
    To achieve this goal, the LSB describes many facilities which must be
    provided by compliant systems. These include specific library versions
    and commands, as well as filesystem layouts. In places, it has been
    necessary to work around entrenched differences between distributions.
    Thus, for example, there is no defined location for system
    initialization scripts; instead, a command install_initd which will
    put a script in the right place must be available.
    
    The LSB also envisions a larger role for the [47]Linux Assigned Names
    and Numbers Authority (LANANA); until now, LANANA has essentially been
    H. Peter Anvin's work maintaining the device number list. The makeup
    and governance of LANANA is not clearly laid out. If it is going to
    take on other tasks (such as registering names of init scripts), its
    operation should probably be clarified before it has to take on a
    contentious decision.
    
    The key to the success of the LSB, of course, is the degree to which
    the distributors move their products into compliance. The signs here
    are good; much of the effort behind the LSB has been put in by the
    distributors in the first place. Most distributions are not all that
    far away from compliance, mainly thanks to the longer-term effect of
    the FHS. LSB-compliant distributions should be available in the near
    future.
    
    There has been a bit of grumbling from some Debian developers, mostly
    over the fact that the LSB specifies the RPM package format as the
    standard for application distribution. Debian, of course, does not use
    RPM. Complaints, however, are both late and unfounded. The decision to
    go with RPM was made back at the beginning, over three years ago. It
    does not require compliant systems to use RPM as their native package
    format; it is sufficient that RPM-packaged, LSB-compliant applications
    be installable. And, in this context, "RPM" does not mean the moving
    target that is Red Hat's current format; it is, instead, specified as
    a subset of the older, version 3 format as documented in Maximum RPM.
    The Debian alien tool should be more than up to the task.
    
    The full, formal rollout will happen at LinuxWorld this August.
    Between now and then, the LSB crew will be working to get the test
    suite and sample implementation in shape. No doubt there will be press
    conferences and photo opportunities as the commercial Linux world
    shows its unity behind this important standard. But the standard
    itself is available now. Strong congratulations are in order for all
    who have worked on the LSB for the last three years.
    
    This LWN.net weekly edition is one day early and, perhaps, a bit thin
    in spots due to the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and staff vacations.
    We'll be back to our regular publishing schedule next week.
    
    Inside this LWN.net weekly edition:
      * [48]Security: Linux security module status; PHP traps.
      * [49]Kernel: Silencing boot-time messages; JFS 1.0; concerns about
        ACPI.
      * [50]Distributions: BlueLinux, Linux from Spain, and Slackware
        turns 8 (point 0).
      * [51]On the Desktop: Spell checker dictionaries, front and
        backends, and multiple units.
      * [52]Development: Cross-language development, Alsa 0.9.0b5,
        omniORB, Powertweak 0.99.1, Perl CGI, Scheme FAQ.
      * [53]Commerce: Linux Applications Increase More Than 30 Percent;
        Toshiba Picks Hard Hat Linux.
      * [54]History: Red Hat ships ApplixWare; 2nd ALS announced; Packet
        Storm taken off-line.
      * [55]Letters: Caldera's licensing; MP3 can't carry viruses?
        
    ...plus the usual array of reports, updates, and announcements.
    
    This Week's LWN was brought to you by:
      * [56]Jonathan Corbet, Executive Editor
      * [57]Elizabeth O. Coolbaugh, Managing Editor
      * [58]Michael J. Hammel, Senior Editor
        
    July 4, 2001
    
                               [59]Click Here 
    
                               [60]Click Here 
    
    
                                                        [61]Next: Security
    
    [62]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [63]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=001-012-132-000-000-001-000-000-012
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/security.php3
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/kernel.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/dists.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/desktop.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/devel.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/commerce.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/press.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/announce.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/history.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/letters.php3
   13. http://lwn.net//2001/0704/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/daily/
   15. http://linuxcalendar.com/
   16. http://lwn.net/stocks/
   17. http://lwn.net/Reviews/
   18. http://lwn.net/Gallery/
   19. http://lwn.net/archives/
   20. http://lwn.net/op/headlines.phtml
   21. http://lwn.net/op/Contact.html
   22. http://linux.tucows.com/
   23. http://news.tucows.com/ext2/
   24. http://unixthemes.tucows.com/
   25. http://lwn.net/2001/features/MandrakeSoft.php3
   26. http://lwn.net/2001/features/KernelSummit/
   27. http://lwn.net/2001/features/Singapore
   28. http://lwn.net/2001/features/djbdns.php3
   29. http://lwn.net/2001/features/linuxworldny/
   30. http://lwn.net/2001/features/JHaas/
   31. http://lwn.net/2001/features/LarryWall/
   32. http://lwn.net/2001/features/Momjian/
   33. http://lwn.net/2000/features/Timeline/
   34. http://lwn.net/2000/features/ESR/
   35. http://lwn.net/2000/features/Comdex/index.php3
   36. http://lwn.net/2000/features/Comdex/RansomLove.php3
   37. http://lwn.net/2000/features/Guido.php3
   38. http://lwn.net/2000/features/PaulEveritt.php3
   39. http://lwn.net/2000/features/ESC/
   40. http://lwn.net/2000/features/ESC/ELC.php3
   41. http://lwn.net/2000/features/OLS/
   42. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/
   43. http://lwn.net/2001/0628/
   44. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/a/lsb-1.0.php3
   45. http://lwn.net/1998/0528/a/lsb.html
   46. http://lwn.net/1998/0507/perensnewlinux.html
   47. http://www.lanana.org/
   48. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/security.php3
   49. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/kernel.php3
   50. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/dists.php3
   51. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/desktop.php3
   52. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/devel.php3
   53. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/commerce.php3
   54. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/history.php3
   55. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/letters.php3
   56. mailto:lwn@lwn.net
   57. mailto:lwn@lwn.net
   58. mailto:lwn@lwn.net
   59. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/buttonpos=lwnbutton125top
   60. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/buttonpos=125-001-016
   61. http://lwn.net/2001/0704/security.php3
   62. http://www.eklektix.com/
   63. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор