You are replying to someone who did, so there's your example. There's a bunch of other people in this thread as well – you really don't need to look very far.

"Standard" is one of those words that can mean different things. Insisting on one absolute definition and calling anyone who uses another definition "disingenuous" is not hugely constructive.

Are you saying there is not only one "standard" use of the word "standard"?

> Insisting on one absolute definition and calling anyone who uses another definition "disingenuous" is not hugely constructive.

It's also ironic coming from someone who's opening salvo was to describe a post about musl being "non-standard" as constituting a "serious allegation".

> Insisting on one absolute definition and calling anyone who uses another definition "disingenuous" is not hugely constructive.

Nobody said anything about an absolute definition.

When describing the C standard library, the only reasonable interpretation of "nonstandard" is that it does not adhere to standard C. There are no counter-examples anyone has been able to provide from any corpus.

> When describing the C standard library, the only reasonable interpretation of "nonstandard" is that it does not adhere to standard C

No, that is your interpretation, and one that, so far as I can tell from all of the responses in this thread, you are alone in believing.

> There are no counter-examples anyone has been able to provide from any corpus.

* https://elinux.org/images/1/15/Anatomy_of_Cross-Compilation_... 2016, see page 14 "de facto standard of Linux C libraries"

* https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3417 (June 1999) -- "Linux has now standardized on the GNU C library (glibc) as the common implementation for future Linux systems."

* https://www.reddit.com/r/C_Programming/comments/9g6531/where... "For the standard library, uCLibC and muSL are the two lightweight (and thus likely easier to understand) libraries. GLibC ("libc") is more or less the de-facto standard C library for all non-windows (and even some windows) development."

* https://man.archlinux.org/man/glibc.7 -- "For a while, Linux libc was the standard C library in many Linux distributions."

Glibc is the standard (as in the most commonly used) libc. Musl is not commonly used. Musl is not the standard libc on Linux.

It requires some effort to migrate applications to musl, and there are functional differences from glibc. https://wiki.musl-libc.org/functional-differences-from-glibc...

That is really how I meant it. Using Linux for almost 20 years I've found the most important part of having a working system is being on the beaten path. Distros that do too much exotic stuff spend all their time fruitlessly trying to keep up with porting and end up confined to a small user base of OS geekery enthusiasts.