MUSL DEPRECIATED?

From Void wiki:
>Some programs (mostly graphical applications) will work incorrectly, or segfault when run under musl. This may be due to programs expecting some glibc-specific behavior.
>Also, some programs that rely on glibc-specific behavior cannot or at least have not been patched yet.
Clearly, Musl is incomplete. It needs to implement this critical functionality that is needed for programs to work. In its current state, it is unfinished.

Other urls found in this thread:

etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119750905506538&w=2
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

can you name some of the missing functionalities?

I like musl, it cucks wincucks so hard. In fact, I'd be happy to use any musl-only features if there are any.

"critical functionality" = GNU vendor lock in ("embrace, extend, extinguish) GPL extensions

>strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
GNU isn't doing any sort of EEE. Their innovations, extensions, and improvements are not proprietary additions. They are Free Software licensed under the GNU General Public License.

>look mom i posted it again

>enters unix
>extends with """free""" extensions
>disadvantages competitors
GPL is not free

>>disadvantages competitors
How exactly?

Please learn the difference between "deprecate" and "depreciate" before you start spamming threads and embarrassing yourself showing everyone you don't even know basic meanings of words, you dumbfuck.

this thread again, are you a glibc dev?

etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html

I'll never understand the kind of autism required to spam the same objectively unfunny copypasta every day. I mean, I totally get it if the pasta is hilarious but when there is zero humor to be had, then what's the point?

Actually, most of the time applications fail to run due to security features in musl. Same happens with OpenBSD all the time. So in this case the one lacking features is really glibc, not musl. Not to mention those applications are failing because they manifestly have potentially dangerous bugs and should be fixed.

All the performance in the world (which musl doesn't even win in every category) doesn't mean shit if programs don't even work right in the first place.

You literally don't know what the words you're using (free in this case) mean. Stop posting, walk to the nearest euthanasia centre and tell them it's urgent.

marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119750905506538&w=2

that's pretty goddamn brutal

>c is such shit you can't do anything without non-standard extensions

See here's the thing. you muslfags seem to think that extending the standard is a bad thing, that libc should be strictly standards-compliant.

If that's the case, then lemme ask ya something. why don't the standards organizations just make one implementation and force everyone to use it? Have ANSI/ISO make a libc that conforms exactly to the standard. Their standard.

technically, any non-POSIX syscall requires non-standard extension

Why would they add non standard stuff into glibc? Why not have separate library for the extra stuff?

>extending the standard is a bad thing
It is. Look up the meaning of "standard".
>libc should be strictly standards-compliant
It should.
>why don't the standards organizations just make one implementation and force everyone to use it?
Because they'd suck at it, and also because there are several possible implementations and forcing everyone to use one and the same would be idiotic.

There, now you know a bit more than you did a few minutes ago.

The whole point of the standard is making software portable and interoperable. The fact that software written in glibc isn't portable or interoperable shows that glibc failed at the one job it had.

It's not glibc's fault if developers want to use the extensions.

Of course it is! They put the fucking extensions there, you fucking moron!

>Because they'd suck at it
I'd figure they'd know best how to do it, considering that they'd be implementing the standard that THEY WROTE.
>The whole point of the standard is making software portable and interoperable. The fact that software written in glibc isn't portable or interoperable shows that glibc failed at the one job it had.
What could possibly be more portable and interoperable than having every OS use the same libc?

I mean, if we're gonna go full-retard with this standards shit, we might as well go all the way with it!

still waiting for the answer

>dude we should like ban all medicine because somebody could od with them

API specification doesn't specify implementation
implementation can be (and to big extend is) architecture-dependent and platform-/OS-dependent

>I'd figure they'd know best how to do it, considering that they'd be implementing the standard that THEY WROTE.
Well, that just goes to show that you have no fucking remote idea what writing an implementation of libc entails.
>What could possibly be more portable and interoperable than having every OS use the same libc?
Look up abstraction layers. That is unnecessary and would kill the whole purpose of the standard, which is enabling an abstract, portable interface. See , there are several possible implementations with different pros and cons, disallowing different implementations would be retarded.
Don't be dumb, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there are regulations to be followed, and glibc doesn't follow them. Medications follow regulations too, you idiot.

Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself.

Works fine for me on Alpine

GNU shill detected

>t. musl dev

ayyy still no answer

great now there is a libc by SJWs

But medications that carry such risk ARE tightly controlled, user. What's your point?

MUH STANDARDS

Reminder that a decade ago Linux users were whining about standards. Standard office file formats, standard network file sharing protocols, web standards, etc. Now you apparently don't care so much about standards anymore. Well make up your goddamn minds!

>implying Linux users are a hivemind
take this (You)

musl is working perfectly, it's the software retards like you are trying to compile with it are broken.

Holy shit I have never seen stallman more BTFO than now