Linux

48183 readers

1455 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

258

Which communication protocol or open standard in software do you wish was more common or used more? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

356 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Whether you're really passionate about RPC, MQTT, Matrix or wayland, tell us more about the protocols or open standards you have strong opinions on!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Most ppl have settled on Commonmark luckily, including us.

[–] technom@programming.dev 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Commonmark leaves some stuff like tables unspecified. That creates the need for another layer like GFM or mistletoe. Standardization is not a strong point for markdown.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe commonmark tries to specify a minimum baseline spec, and doesn't try to to expand beyond that. It can be frustrating bc we'd like to see tables, superscripts, spoilers, and other things standardized, but I can see why they'd want to keep things minimal.

[–] technom@programming.dev 7 points 7 months ago

Asciidoc is a good example of why everything should be standardized. While markdown has multiple implementations, any document is tied to just one implementation. Asciidoc has just one implementation. But when the standard is ready, you should be able to switch implementations seamlessly.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Have you read the CommonMark specification? It’s very complex for a language that’s supposed to be lightweight.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What's the alternative? We either have everything specified well, or we'll have a million slightly incompatible implementations. I'll take the big specification. At least it's not HTML5.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

An alternative would be a language with a simpler syntax. Something like XML, but less verbose.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And then we'll be back to a hundred slightly incompatible versions. You need detailed specifications to avoid that. Why not stick to markdown?

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not if the language is standardized from the start.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago

Sure it will. It will be a detailed language from the start.