Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Linux and Standards
From: Jan Depner (eviltwin69_AT_cableone.net)
Date: Tue Nov 02 2004 - 11:58:31 EET
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:43, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:50:05 -0600, Jan Depner <eviltwin69_AT_cableone.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 15:15, lau_AT_lupulin.net wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:04:36PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> > > > No disrespect intended to Richard Stallman and the GNU crowd. The OS
> > > > wouldn't exist without those tools but the tools are not part of the
> > > > OS. They are merely applications that are bundled in with the
> > > > distribution.
> > > >
> > > > Given the more widely accepted definition of an operating system I think
> > > > it is perfectly acceptable to speak of Linux as a standard.
> > >
> > > This is a gray area, but I think that you cannot just say that the gnu
> > > tools are _not_ a part of the operating system.
> > >
> > > Would you say that the startup scripts are _not_ a part of the OS ?
> > > All the startup scripts that I've seen rely are parts of gnu coreutils.
> > >
> > > I think that qualifies as being _part_ of the OS.
> >
> > Nope. A startup script is just a startup script. Grub is not part of
> > the operating system either. The OS is, by definition, the kernel. An
> > interesting thing to consider is RTLinux. Linux is *not* the OS in
> > RTLinux. The RT microkernel is the OS. Linux is merely the idle
> > process. I guess you could say it's part of the OS since it is in the
> > inner loop so to speak. And, speaking of which, has anyone taken a look
> > at Monta Vista's Open Source Real-Time Linux Project in relation to
> > audio? It's using a lot of Ingo's patches.
> >
> > Jan
>
> It's an interesting topic and discussion. Probably my comments will be
> from a little different direction. (what's new...?) I've served on a
> number of standards committees (both IEEE like 1394 and closed/company
> driven like PCI-X) so I'll add comments from that POV.
>
> What I haven't seen discussed much yet is 'standards' vs. 'open
> standards' vs. 'closed standards'.
>
> Windows - closed standard - They apparently know what they are doing
> with their architecture. Applications can be written by other
> companies that don't have access to the source. Apps work within the
> accepted norms of the Windows standard. (Hey - I Didn't say they had
> 'high' standards...) ;-)
>
> Linux kernel - semi-open standard - The kernel is documented. The code
> is open and available to most* people that want to look at it. Changes
> are discussed in an open environment but final decisions are made by a
> select few.
>
> Java - semi open standard - Much like the Linux kernel many changes
> are discussed in the open, but final decisions are made by Sun. (Has
> this changed yet?)
>
> IEEE standards (1394, 802.11) - open standard - Discussed in open.
> Decisions made by vote of working group members through voting.
> Committee rules prohibit 'loading' by individual companies. (At the
> discretion of the committee chairman.) Working group participation
> open to pretty much anyone willing to attend the meetings.
>
I'm definitely in favor of open standards. I don't understand why you
think that the Linux kernel code is available only to *most* people.
Also, final decisions on the main branch of Linux are made by a select
few. Anyone can change the code and use, run, distribute it. It's
almost like it's completely open but not completely standard (unless you
stay with the main, blessed-by-Linus, branch). Monta Vista (and Ingo
and others) are trying to sway that decision making process right now
but, if they don't, I'm sure they'll keep going.
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 02 2004 - 11:44:21 EET