> > 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 ag

> > 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.