Hello, On Apr 1 18:36 Julien BLACHE wrote (shortened): > I think SANE1 has proved its stability over the years now.
The way how the discussion regarding SANE2 is done could indicate exactly the opposite for the future (*) for someone at a manufacturer who listens to this discussion to decide whether or not to make a Linux driver. But when SANE1 would be stable even for the future, what would be a real drawback when it also becomes a LSB standard? I don't think a LSB standard attracts more proprietary stuff. I think it is the opposite: I think if a manufacturer decides to do his stuff isolated from the rest of the world (i.e. make their usual proprietary nonsense), they will make their usual proprietary bloatware driver packages (inlude all what they decide which makes users happy: backend + frontend + tools + installer-script + ...) regardless of what the rest of the world really needs. I think if SANE1 was a LSB standard, more manufacturers decide to give up their isolation and listen to what the world really likes to have which results more free driver packages which are designed in compliance to the standard. Another item why SANE1 should become a LSB standard: Currently SANE1 is no official standard from the "outer world point of view" - I mean no standard which is declared to be a standard by an independent organization. Currently SANE1 is only internally (i.e. within the SANE project) a standard, but from the outer world there is no confirmation that one can rely on SANE1 for the near future, see (*) above. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF: Markus Rex
