Status and outlook of LSB and FHS compliance of Fedora. -- "standards"

[Bryan J. Smith]

Chris Chabot wrote:  
> Please let me begin by comming out and admitting that this whole /svr
> *edit* seems quite silly to me.
> The reasoning behind /svr is described in FHS-2.3 as: "This main purpose
> of specifying this is so that users may find the location of the data
> files for particular service and so that services which require a single
> tree for readonly data, writable data and scripts (such as cgi scripts)
> can be reasonably placed"

So, LSB has gone from merely documenting and unifying "best practices" to
actually creating its own, new standards?  Is it LSB's intent to "de-UNIX"
Linux and create anew?

By introducing new TLDs, these seems to be the case.
Why does LSB wish to create more work for itself and everyone?

<suggestion>
If they want to do anything, they should create a _single_ TLD.
Maybe call it, obviously, /lsb, and then symlink everything
under it (or everything that can be).
</suggestion>

<rant/opinionated>
To give my opinion, this sounds like an entity that has moved from
standardization efforts to justifying itself with classic beaucratic
BS.  And I thought the IEEE was bad at times, at least they try to
minimize impact and involve vendors in such decisions.

I just can't understand why _anyone_ would agree to TLD changes.
Things that go directly against the history of UNIX.  Things that
don't change much.  Are we going to start being like Microsoft where
we change things all the time?

I think UNIX has evolved, while imperfect, better than any other OS.
Things are in Linux out of Darwinism.  Something I think "standards"
that are not written to document/unify "beset practices" but move
people elsewhere to where they "think" they should be are self-
defeating.
</ran/opinionated>

But I am not in a position to offer such opinions.
I have not contributed to the Fedora project in any formal capacity.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- b.j.smith at ieee.org