3 ms·

> And multiple competing and interoperable implementations should be seen as a good thing in my opinion. How is that a good thing? We all understand and agree

> And multiple competing and interoperable implementations should be seen as a good thing in my opinion. How is that a good thing? We all understand and agree how IPv4 and IPv6 works (mostly), and how HTTP works, and how (mostly) the networking layer works. Introducing more competing standards leads to a complete mess, have you seen USB lately? USB-4 and its optional components, USB 4 gen 2x2 and USB 4 Gen 3X2 but there's also USB 4 Gen 3x1 and Gen 3x2 as well as 3x3 and 3x4, except I am lying about the last two, or maybe the first two? I can't remember the standards are confusing. Oh, that USB-C cable bricked your Nintendo Switch? Oh the Raspberry PI screwed up their type-c implementation? Yup, competing standards are amazing, especially when they compete with themselves! I agree with what you're saying partially, but at times you do need someone who can make a decision and be the decider of how things work. Do you really think you could type in this textarea today without people deciding that? I am sure of the 100's of processes involved in using a computer, writing in this text area, clicking "post" (http, browser, the OS, kernel, drivers, even electricity itself, ISPs, etc etc) somebody made a decision and that was that. We couldn't use the internet without a person being a dictator somewhere in the chain.

komali2 6y ago
Ipv4, 6, html, css, and javascript were all implemented many different ways, and while sure it was annoying for web developers, the alternative was everyone uses google's browser. That's pretty much how it is now and I don't like it.
- aboringusername 6y ago
  I think there is a reason for that, and this is a topic that calls into question more than just computers but human nature itself. The older web was dominated by competing standards and companies trying to get the "edge" (pun intended), as shenanigans are afoot trying to keep 'your browser' in the lead. IE6 and those days were absolutely horrible. Of course, the downside (or upside, depending how you view it) is that whatever Google does is now the standard. AMP? Standard. Web APIs? Our implementation is how it is. Whether we're better off or not remains to be seen. But it sure beats having 20 different types of "USB" standards on the front of my PC from 15 different stakeholders. At least today when I buy my new external HDD it uses USB, I plug it in, and it "just works". We wouldn't be saying that intrinsically if there were loads of competing standards. (Whose to say the Linux kernel wouldn't be involved in a fight between $competingComapnies trying to cripple each other? We see tricky things in the kernel from time to time, See [1] and [2]) [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-Linux-5.9-Delayed https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-L... [2]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-59-Proprietary-Shim-Taint https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-59...
  - throwaway-jeN0S 6y ago
    I am not advocating for competing standards. I am advocating for open standards and competing implementations. Both of your examples point to competing standards: IE6 was a tentative to fork the web standards by Microsoft. The 20 USB form-factors are different connector standards (even if they all implement the same wire protocol).
oarsinsync 6y ago
> > And multiple competing and interoperable implementations should be seen as a good thing in my opinion. > How is that a good thing? We all understand and agree how IPv4 and IPv6 works (mostly), and how HTTP works, and how (mostly) the networking layer works. And each platform has its own implementation. The specification is the same, the implementation is different in each case. It's not the same TCP stack in Windows as it is on a Mac. There are multiple TCP implementations that exist for Linux. Each browser implements it's own HTTP stack. > Introducing more competing standards The GP isn't suggesting there should be more competing standards, the GP is suggesting there should be more competing implementations of the same standard. > have you seen USB lately USB is a mess. I don't think anyone will disagree with what a fustercluck USB-C + USB3 are. > Oh the Raspberry PI screwed up their type-c implementation? Raspi foundation screwed up in the reading of the spec, implemented an error, identified the error, and have resolved it. The implication in the comment is that people cannot be trusted to perform their own implementations of standards, and need to acquire implementations from the one true source. If that were the reality, the cost of the RPi4 would probably be higher. > Oh, that USB-C cable bricked your Nintendo Switch? This is particularly tragic. The Nintendo Switch doesn't have a USB-C port. It has a port that is dangerously similar to USB-C. 100% on Nintendo for doing this, and absolutely not the fault of the consumer who sees a port that looks like, and generally works with, USB-C, but is not. Nintendo absolutely should have done better here.

komali2 6y ago

Ipv4, 6, html, css, and javascript were all implemented many different ways, and while sure it was annoying for web developers, the alternative was everyone uses google's browser. That's pretty much how it is now and I don't like it.

aboringusername 6y ago
I think there is a reason for that, and this is a topic that calls into question more than just computers but human nature itself. The older web was dominated by competing standards and companies trying to get the "edge" (pun intended), as shenanigans are afoot trying to keep 'your browser' in the lead. IE6 and those days were absolutely horrible. Of course, the downside (or upside, depending how you view it) is that whatever Google does is now the standard. AMP? Standard. Web APIs? Our implementation is how it is. Whether we're better off or not remains to be seen. But it sure beats having 20 different types of "USB" standards on the front of my PC from 15 different stakeholders. At least today when I buy my new external HDD it uses USB, I plug it in, and it "just works". We wouldn't be saying that intrinsically if there were loads of competing standards. (Whose to say the Linux kernel wouldn't be involved in a fight between $competingComapnies trying to cripple each other? We see tricky things in the kernel from time to time, See [1] and [2]) [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-Linux-5.9-Delayed https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-L... [2]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-59-Proprietary-Shim-Taint https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-59...
- throwaway-jeN0S 6y ago
  I am not advocating for competing standards. I am advocating for open standards and competing implementations. Both of your examples point to competing standards: IE6 was a tentative to fork the web standards by Microsoft. The 20 USB form-factors are different connector standards (even if they all implement the same wire protocol).

oarsinsync 6y ago

> > And multiple competing and interoperable implementations should be seen as a good thing in my opinion. > How is that a good thing? We all understand and agree how IPv4 and IPv6 works (mostly), and how HTTP works, and how (mostly) the networking layer works. And each platform has its own implementation. The specification is the same, the implementation is different in each case. It's not the same TCP stack in Windows as it is on a Mac. There are multiple TCP implementations that exist for Linux. Each browser implements it's own HTTP stack. > Introducing more competing standards The GP isn't suggesting there should be more competing standards, the GP is suggesting there should be more competing implementations of the same standard. > have you seen USB lately USB is a mess. I don't think anyone will disagree with what a fustercluck USB-C + USB3 are. > Oh the Raspberry PI screwed up their type-c implementation? Raspi foundation screwed up in the reading of the spec, implemented an error, identified the error, and have resolved it. The implication in the comment is that people cannot be trusted to perform their own implementations of standards, and need to acquire implementations from the one true source. If that were the reality, the cost of the RPi4 would probably be higher. > Oh, that USB-C cable bricked your Nintendo Switch? This is particularly tragic. The Nintendo Switch doesn't have a USB-C port. It has a port that is dangerously similar to USB-C. 100% on Nintendo for doing this, and absolutely not the fault of the consumer who sees a port that looks like, and generally works with, USB-C, but is not. Nintendo absolutely should have done better here.