[iamnothere]

> For comparison, nobody cares that the Linux kernel isn't a standard. Nobody wants a "competing" Linux kernel implementation. The implementation itself is the standard and reference and that's totally fine.

Except for the people working on the BSDs, Hurd, Minix, etc.

POSIX is the standard, Linux is the implementation (not completely accurate, but close enough). Apps built to the standard can usually run on BSD with minor changes, just like websites built to work with Chrome usually work well on Firefox with only a few minor changes.

I will be controversial and say that Linux's utter dominance in the post-UNIX space may have been detrimental to the development of the ecosystem as a whole, limiting radical experimentation and preventing a much-needed reimagining of core computing paradigms.

[gridlockd]

> POSIX is the standard, Linux is the implementation (not completely accurate, but close enough)

POSIX is more of a post-hoc thing, it doesn't really matter except for compliance - and then Linux isn't compliant. In practice you still need an abstraction layer.

If you want to use actual Linux features, you have to use Linux-specific interfaces. Of course a lot of applications don't do that, but that's besides the point.

The same is true for other UNIX (and non-UNIX) operating systems. They're not implementing new standards, they're implementing features to differentiate themselves.

> I will be controversial and say that Linux's utter dominance in the post-UNIX space may have been detrimental to the development of the ecosystem as a whole, limiting radical experimentation and preventing a much-needed reimagining of core computing paradigms.

Perhaps, but standards wouldn't help here - to the contrary.

[iamnothere]

This is true, and I agree. I think I may have missed this in your original comment:

> The standardization process takes a lot of time and just because something is a standard doesn't mean major players will implement it. Implementations always trump.

Yes, absolutely. Standards are driven by successful implementations. My point was that more, better implementations (leading to new and improved standards) are not a bad thing. The web stagnated during IE's dominance, and it may develop the same sort of stagnation under the dominance of Blink. Some degree of competition is good to keep things moving forward in ways that users want.