Will Linux wevver be truly standardized?

[jbeukema]

As in all the same line commands, the same organization structure, etc? This would allow one installer format and greater cooperation. I honestly believe that a lack of such standardization is the main thing keeping linux from being a bigger player in the market

[nomnomnom]

Watz da wevver lyk gov'na?

[RiceMonster]

Linux already shares the same commands between distros. The filesystem layout is more or less the same as well.

[ibutho]

The simple answer is "no". Some things are standard and others pretty much depend on the distribution maintainer. How exactly does "lack of standardisation" keep Linux from being a big player and in which market are you referring to? Its already a big player in the server market and many hosting providers use Linux (Look at how many Red Hat/CentOS and Debian webservers are out there).

[moster]

Well, I agree with OP. It is ridiculous to see threads like "How to install firefox XX?" when new version come. If you cannot see problem there, then you have problem with your eyes. :)

edit:
If someone with few hundred posts ask on Windows forum "How to install Firefox", it would be considered retarded. Here it is quite normal. And with reason.

[Copernicus1234]

No, but if you pick a version you like, its not likely to change the way it installs software.

[gn2]

God I hope not.

[Jimleko211]

If you think about it, it kind of is already. I mean sure, some distributions choose apt over yum, or .deb over .rpm. And some choose XFCE over GNOME. But the filesystem is the same, most of the commands are the same, and we're all running the same kernel. Plus, if you think about user share, GTK+ is the "Win32" of the GNU/Linux world. Yeah, there are people running KDE so they use QT, but GNOME is the most popular DE out there right now, and most of the 'minor' DEs and WMs use the GTK+ tool kit.

[cmay]

as far as i understand it Linux is inspired by UNIX and that was not standardized to begin with . different UNIX systems was incompatible with each other on some level and therefor at some point in time there was a standard invented.

linux should follow most of these standards even linux is not UNIX certified . but it is POSIX compliant and strives to be so .

still there is no standard for how packages should be ultimately but the file system is usually FHS.

i would apriciate if someone can correct me if i am wrong in this perception.

[3rdalbum]

Well, I agree with OP. It is ridiculous to see threads like "How to install firefox XX?" when new version come. If you cannot see problem there, then you have problem with your eyes. :)

The problem is that although there are instructions for installing Firefox, that work on ANY distribution, people don't read them. They prefer to ask on the forums about how to install.

You can install Firefox in precisely the same way on any distribution.

[MikeTheC]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1024/elmerfudd01.png

Well, it's fwunny you showuld awsk that qwestion...

See, I've nevwa fwelt that Winux would evwah become
un-dif-we-en-shwe-ated amongst the diffwent
distwabutions. Wemembea, divwesity is a stwength.
Having all the distwibutions becoming the same is
wike twying to put all of wun's eggs in wun bwasket.
Just wike how, even though I havwen't caught that
skwooy wabbit yet, I somehow haven't stwaved to death.
It's a fwunny thing, isn't it?

Hehehehehehehehehehe...

[darrelljon]

as far as i understand it Linux is inspired by UNIX and that was not standardized to begin with . different UNIX systems was incompatible with each other on some level and therefor at some point in time there was a standard invented.

linux should follow most of these standards even linux is not UNIX certified . but it is POSIX compliant and strives to be so .

still there is no standard for how packages should be ultimately but the file system is usually FHS.

i would apriciate if someone can correct me if i am wrong in this perception.
Yeah - POSIX.

[madjr]

my point exactly

example we have this game written in Java (1 out of many):

http://www.poxnora.com/

even thou is java they only showcase a windows and mac installer. they state (in their forums) that we don't get an installer, because of too many distros and linux users should be smart enough to get it working without an installer.

that's BS, my 11 year old wants to play this game, he uses linux, but doesn't mean he's so freakin smart. He got fed up trying to install it in ubuntu (with some obscure instructions, located randomly in their forums), so he prefered to boot to windows and got it working right away (figures :/).

so even "crossplatform" software is easier to get working on windows/mac. Even updates for kde apps are easier to get in windows now (and will get easier).

windows has .exe/msi and macs have .dmg and linux has..... trillions of different formats that don't even play nice together..

we are so fragmented that even autopackage (http://autopackage.org/) (supposedly an unified software installer) doesn't works 90% of the time...

[Jimleko211]

windows has .exe/msi and macs have .dmg and linux has..... trillions of different formats that don't even play nice together..



Linux has .deb and .rpm. While I agree that not having one, unified format is stupid, 2 formats are not nearly trillions. Linux distributions today are grouped into three camps:



Debian-based distros, including Ubuntu
Red Hat Linux-based distros, including Mandriva and Fedora
Source-based distros, focusing on compiling from source.

Sure there are some oddballs in there, like Arch, but most fall under those three camps. Now, most "newbies" fall under groups 1 and 2, so if you provide a .deb or a .rpm (or both), that'll solve the problem for most users. For group 3...I do believe it's possible to compile dpkg or rpm from source.

[afmGM]

I deleted my post, because it was stupid, and I was wrong about something in it.

[bodhi.zazen]

Well define "Standard". There are many standards across distros, but there are differences as well.

The Ubuntu repositories are HUGE and if you need to install something outside the repos the standard way is to compile.

You might be interested in autopackage.

http://autopackage.org/

They work fairly well.

Having things such as autopackage, however, will inevitable lead to cracked systems the way windows systems are cracked, so it is a mixed blessing.

At the end of the day, the repositories work well as does learning to compile.

[C!oud]

(eg. do we really need like 10 different window managers? Why not just have 2 or 3? and save the effort and use it to improve the popular ones).

Who are you (let alone anyone else) to decide what software we should keep or not keep? As long as I abide by the GPL, it's my right to create as many forks as I want out of an open source project. Besides how is windows any different when it comes to software selection? For example, there's fifty million media players in Windows and fifty million media players in linux.

The variety of package managers and linux standards is another thing and I can understand that, but I'm still against any universal standard being selected. Again we're dealing with linux and I can create/use whatever package manager I want to. Now if a package manager became universal simply because of it's superiority then again that's great but right now I just don't see that happening.

[Warpnow]

If someone with few hundred posts ask on Windows forum "How to install Firefox", it would be considered retarded. Here it is quite normal. And with reason.

Usually that's beta that's released only as code.

Go to the windows forum and ask how many of the users can compile and install firefox from code. Then come here.

Its not an inferiority, its a difference.

[Keyper7]

If some of my favorite bands were more standardized and followed popular trends, they would be bigger players in the market.

And I would probably stop listening to them.

[Keyper7]

If someone with few hundred posts ask on Windows forum "How to install Firefox", it would be considered retarded. Here it is quite normal. And with reason.

The reason being "not being used to it".

If someone uses Ubuntu before using Windows, this person would be completely lost on the concept of actually going to a software site and downloading an installer instead of confortably using the OS repository.

[JordyD]

Well, I agree with OP. It is ridiculous to see threads like "How to install firefox XX?" when new version come. If you cannot see problem there, then you have problem with your eyes. :)

edit:
If someone with few hundred posts ask on Windows forum "How to install Firefox", it would be considered retarded. Here it is quite normal. And with reason.

Here it is also quite ridiculous. I know exactly what the problem is: LOG, or Lack Of Googling.


Actually, take a look at the Google results:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=how+to+install+firefox+on+linux&aq=0&aqi=g10&fp=c9fe100d9e542c1e
Boom! First link is to Mozilla's support! (I thought the "boom" was necessary)


God I hope not.

I agree.

[snip]
:lolflag:

[3rdalbum]

windows has .exe/msi and macs have .dmg and linux has..... trillions of different formats that don't even play nice together..

I'm sorry, your post got completely invalidated by your lack of knowledge.

".exe" is not a package format, it's a Windows executable. Such installers just dump files into the filesystem. Similar installers exist on Linux too - they're known as "binary installers" and are usually given the ".run" or ".bin" suffix.

Any old monkey can write a binary installer for Linux that will work on all distributions.

Also, ".dmg" is not a package format for the Mac OS. It's a disk image format. Those disk images contain either binary installers for the Macintosh, or a folder full of files that the user has to dump into the filesystem.

It's also possible to make a disk image for Linux that contains a binary installer, or that contains a folder that you drag to your filesystem and then double-click the executable.

[3rdalbum]

If some of my favorite bands were more standardized and followed popular trends, they would be bigger players in the market.

And I would probably stop listening to them.

Exactly. And remember, the music industry makes more money now than it did a few years ago when the only music being released was rap/hip-hop.

[moster]

I'm sorry, your post got completely invalidated by your lack of knowledge.

".exe" is not a package format, it's a Windows executable. Such installers just dump files into the filesystem. Similar installers exist on Linux too - they're known as "binary installers" and are usually given the ".run" or ".bin" suffix.

Any old monkey can write a binary installer for Linux that will work on all distributions.

Also, ".dmg" is not a package format for the Mac OS. It's a disk image format. Those disk images contain either binary installers for the Macintosh, or a folder full of files that the user has to dump into the filesystem.

It's also possible to make a disk image for Linux that contains a binary installer, or that contains a folder that you drag to your filesystem and then double-click the executable.

Dont play naive. You know what he meant. Only virtualbox have nearly 20 install packages and I did not even count x64 versions.

[mdsmedia]

Well, I agree with OP. It is ridiculous to see threads like "How to install firefox XX?" when new version come. If you cannot see problem there, then you have problem with your eyes. :)

edit:
If someone with few hundred posts ask on Windows forum "How to install Firefox", it would be considered retarded. Here it is quite normal. And with reason.
You seem to forget that most of those threads are started by new users who are used to Windows.

Installing Firefox XX is easy. It's in the repositories!!

[moster]

You seem to forget that most of those threads are started by new users who are used to Windows.

Installing Firefox XX is easy. It's in the repositories!!
Not all software are in repos. And even if they are, it is older versions.

[JordyD]

Not all software are in repos. And even if they are, it is older versions.

I come back to the LOG argument.

Google for a newer Firefox deb.

[mdsmedia]

Not all software are in repos. And even if they are, it is older versions.
Now you want to move the goal posts to suit your argument. You used Firefox as an example. I used Firefox as an example. Firefox 3.5 is in the Ubuntu repos.

If you use Arch Linux, all the software is up to date, cutting edge, in the repos.

Or, as others have said, find a .deb and double click it.

In Windows you have to search for ALL software on the web (or on the store shelves). In Linux, MOST software is in the repos.

[markbuntu]

If you want bleeding edge, ubuntu is not really the distro for that. But arch is.
It is not up to the distros to cater to what you want it is up to you to find the distro that matches what you want with what they are doing.

More work for you maybe but also more chance for your satisfaction.

When I first used linux there were only two choices for distros available on the net at the time and I could never get slackware downloaded succesfully so I used the other one which was redhat.

[bodhi.zazen]

If you want bleeding edge, ubuntu is not really the distro for that. But arch is.

I agree, but only to a point. Fedora is much more "bleeding edge" then Arch will ever be.

Let me qualify that, Arch does a great job of being what it is, a rolling release, and the latest version of the latest software are available much earlier.

But Fedora is the playground of the Red Hat developers and they are pushing the edge. Examples include kernel development and Virtualization technologies.

Not that the Arch developers do not contribute to these Projects, but unlike Fedora, Arch is not large enough to have influence much beyond Arch.

Arch may run the latest Gnome, but Fedora is much more influential in developing features the next version of Gnome that Arch will then run.

[RiceMonster]

I agree, but only to a point. Fedora is much more "bleeding edge" then Arch will ever be.

Let me qualify that, Arch does a great job of being what it is, a rolling release, and the latest version of the latest software are available much earlier.

But Fedora is the playground of the Red Hat developers and they are pushing the edge. Examples include kernel development and Virtualization technologies.

Not that the Arch developers do not contribute to these Projects, but unlike Fedora, Arch is not large enough to have influence much beyond Arch.

Arch may run the latest Gnome, but Fedora is much more influential in developing features the next version of Gnome that Arch will then run.

Well, you're right, but there are some areas where Arch is more bleeding edge than Fedora. For example, Fedora will freeze major packages such as the kernel, X, etc for each release, and Arch will get newer versions of these packages before Fedora. In the area you speak of, however, Fedora is more bleeding edge.

[bodhi.zazen]

Well, you're right, but there are some areas where Arch is more bleeding edge than Fedora. For example, Fedora will freeze major packages such as the kernel, X, etc for each release, and Arch will get newer versions of these packages before Fedora. In the area you speak of, however, Fedora is more bleeding edge.

I think we are on the same page, I was just qualifying "bleeding edge" a bit , "bleeding edge" is not always == to latest packages.

[rootless]

Dear god, why would you wish such a fate on our communities?

I like things how they are. Some distros prize standardization and adhere more or less strictly to certain standards, POSIX, for instance. Others prize customization and tinkering. They each attract different kinds of people. Those people use, develop, and improve the kind of software that they like. The software is generally of very high quality because the developers have a personal stake in it.

Linux is about freedom. The GPL is at its very core. Free as in freedom, but also free as in free beer. This is the cornerstone of what we have built, and without it, the free software foundation would never have existed to make the tools (GCC, etc.) that Torvalds used to build the first kernel, and linux would not exist.

Linux is nothing without the community, and the community exists because we gather around a central ethic.

I personally find my freedom in nonstandard ways. I learned linux on ubuntu, but dual boot it with Gentoo because I like customizing everything.

Everything in my Gentoo / is custom compiled from source for MY personal hardware, with modifications that I chose based on what software I was running. Is it practical for anyone besides me to use? Probably not... but if I wanted to I could make Gentoo almost exactly like a vanilla ubuntu or fedora or opensuse.

One's beliefs about the question of standardization seem to come hand in hand with the philosophy of one's favorite distro.

Nonstandardization is evolutionary. Some distros will succeed and some will fail, but some of them will tend to live on, warp, and evolve to better suit the needs of their userbase.

This is the beauty of linux.

[shadylookin]

While Ubuntu is my preference I can get around on various *NIX systems. Under the hood they're all very much alike and very customizable.

[tubasoldier]

As much as I have become repelled by bugs in ubuntu as of late I must admit that it alone has created more stanardization than any other distribution. It has done it through mere popularity, thanks in a large part to the ship-it program.

[moster]

Here it is also quite ridiculous. I know exactly what the problem is: LOG, or Lack Of Googling.


Actually, take a look at the Google results:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=how+to+install+firefox+on+linux&aq=0&aqi=g10&fp=c9fe100d9e542c1e
Boom! First link is to Mozilla's support! (I thought the "boom" was necessary)



If you running this forum, when I click on help section I would only find one large GOOGLE IT. But google would not find anything because everybody would just google, google, goog...

Point is, some things should be that easy so they do not need instructions. that is my whole point.

[Firestem4]

Well, I agree with OP. It is ridiculous to see threads like "How to install firefox XX?" when new version come. If you cannot see problem there, then you have problem with your eyes. :)

edit:
If someone with few hundred posts ask on Windows forum "How to install Firefox", it would be considered retarded. Here it is quite normal. And with reason.

With that logic a Windows Blue-Screen and in the many, many cases where you do something to your system like install windows updates and the OS becomes corrupted, it is normal.

However when this happens in Linux we are OBVIOUSLY Not ready for the world.


(I'm not attacking you personally but this is the unfortunate mind frame many people have)

[moster]

With that logic a Windows Blue-Screen and in the many, many cases where you do something to your system like install windows updates and the OS becomes corrupted, it is normal.

However when this happens in Linux we are OBVIOUSLY Not ready for the world.


(I'm not attacking you personally but this is the unfortunate mind frame many people have)

I am for solution to take best from the both worlds. Unless you say that windows do not have single good side that is worth to copy? M$ do not have that problem when they release Win7 CLI only :)

Let alone locking and corrupted updates. Ubuntu have that too. Actually, I do not recall any os do not have that, but some of them can uninstall updates :) (I think OpenSolaris)


I know you are not attacking, we are just discussing..

[dandis]

Anything is possible. However, the packaging dilemma, at least, has plagued Linux distributions since the beginning. Years later, distros are still mostly incompatible. Not even consecutive releases of the same distro are compatible with each other. I do not see an end to this and I believe the packaging [question / dilemma / problem / issue] will haunt us for a long time.

[pointyblufish]

Please don't take offense, but the idea some folks in the community like to express that an OS ought to be some kind of expression of one's individuality is itself reason enough to scare most users away from Linux. Most people are not developers. They want a computer that "just works." The only reason they're even considering Linux is because Windows keeps breaking things and Macs are ridiculously expensive, but make them bring up the console enough times and they will either fork over the cash for a Mac or live with Windows' deficiencies.

[lykwydchykyn]

This thing you call "Linux" is not a "thing". It's many things, all very different and designed for different purposes by people with different goals and ideas. They share in common the Linux kernel, and sometimes GNU and some other common pieces of software. So people colloquially call it "Linux".

But it isn't a single thing like Windows is. Windows is an OS, but it's also a product and it's owned by a single vendor. Linux (even in the colloquial "more than just the kernel" sense) is an OS, but not a single product from a single vendor. Why won't people understand this?

This idea that "the community" or "linux developers" or "Linux" is some entity with a power structure and single set of goals and decision makers a la Microsoft or Apple is just a delusion.

Standards are nice, but in areas where no solution is yet adequate, I'd prefer no standard until natural selection chooses one.

[rootless]

This thing you call "Linux" is not a "thing". It's many things, all very different and designed for different purposes by people with different goals and ideas. They share in common the Linux kernel, and sometimes GNU and some other common pieces of software. So people colloquially call it "Linux".

But it isn't a single thing like Windows is. Windows is an OS, but it's also a product and it's owned by a single vendor. Linux (even in the colloquial "more than just the kernel" sense) is an OS, but not a single product from a single vendor. Why won't people understand this?

This idea that "the community" or "linux developers" or "Linux" is some entity with a power structure and single set of goals and decision makers a la Microsoft or Apple is just a delusion.

Standards are nice, but in areas where no solution is yet adequate, I'd prefer no standard until natural selection chooses one.

My thoughts on this subject exactly.

Please don't take offense, but the idea some folks in the community like to express that an OS ought to be some kind of expression of one's individuality is itself reason enough to scare most users away from Linux. Most people are not developers. They want a computer that "just works." The only reason they're even considering Linux is because Windows keeps breaking things and Macs are ridiculously expensive, but make them bring up the console enough times and they will either fork over the cash for a Mac or live with Windows' deficiencies.

And why should I care about "most users?" If they want a mac, let them buy a mac- or even windoze vista. Maybe it just might suit their needs. I am not a linux evangelist. There is nothing inherently right about pandering to windoze users to try to get them to switch over. This is why I fear ubuntu is going the way of windoze- so much of GNOME and KDE are geared towards some sort of hypothetical former windoze user that many developers are now essentially trying to write a better version of microsoft windows or OSX Leopard.

Have you seen the size of a GNOME or KDE install lately? Why don't we put the focus back on developing good software, rather than software that is better than the popular software already out there? If we want our software to be the best that it can be, we need to aim high.

It's a free market. Developers should code whatever kind of software they want because they will most assuredly do a better job- that's the beauty of linux... but, as for me... I'll stay away from GNOME and KDE, thank you very much.

O noes, teh console! part of the reason *nix has gone so far away from standardization in the first place is that we have moved away from the terminal. Bash is the same everywhere, and for many (not all) applications, it is the most efficient means of working with data. Bash is easy. Most config files are easy to deal with- especially via automated processes. Config files meant to be edited via GUI tend to be more nonsensical.

The GUI also helps make the filesystem more confusing. When people forget what's going on under the hood, they write applications with confusing directory trees, sloppy naming, and limited functionality. Obviously M$FT and OSX are the biggest perpetrators here, but it happens in the *nix world too- just look at the problems faced by Opensuse. Even KDE and GNOME are guilty of this. It breaks my heart to see our hallowed tradition of the terminal hidden deeply inside menus in the popular DEs.

Bash is easy to learn. It just takes a little patience- a virtue which is, unfortunately, lacking these days. It IS user friendly; it only seems scary because it's antithetical to the GUI way of doing things.

In any case, I suppose I should applaud the momentous efforts of the developers to democratize Open Source software. It's their code, and their prerogative to do what they think is right... but as for me... I've sadly been moving away from my beloved Ubuntu recently. Our philosophies are just too divergent.

Once I finish compiling my Gentoo /,(a days long process, hahahaha) I will be rocking my quad-aterm embedded desktop w/ tiling fluxbox on Gentoo instead of Ubuntu. I guess I've just grown up as a *nix user. I suppose I was one of the windoze converts too, some time ago, groping my way around the GUI.

Now? not any more. haha. I would suggest all of you gradually try to do more and more in terminal. Once you get the hang of it, many things are lightning fast, or immediate, if you can script them. Right now I'm doing about 50% in terminal. The other 50% is comprised of visual media and web browsing.

[rootless]

And one last thing...



This idea that "the community" or "linux developers" or "Linux" is some entity with a power structure and single set of goals and decision makers a la Microsoft or Apple is just a delusion.

No, it's not. Go peruse the GPL. It- or one of it's derivatives is on every bit of software that you will find in a vanilla install, down to the kernel and the drivers. Its enforcement is required by law, thanks to close scrutiny by bodies such as the Free Software Foundation.

We also have the Debian social contract, and I guess I could throw in the african philosophy of 'ubuntu' while I'm at it, even though that one is a little bit mushier.

[mdsmedia]

And one last thing...



No, it's not. Go peruse the GPL. It- or one of it's derivatives is on every bit of software that you will find in a vanilla install, down to the kernel and the drivers. Its enforcement is required by law, thanks to close scrutiny by bodies such as the Free Software Foundation.

We also have the Debian social contract, and I guess I could throw in the african philosophy of 'ubuntu' while I'm at it, even though that one is a little bit mushier.
You've just contradicted yourself in one sentence, or two paragraphs if you like.

The GPL, the Debian social contract, and the Ubuntu philosophy just go to show the divergence even in this very small sub-sphere of Linux. Ubuntu is based on Debian, but does not have to adhere to the Debian social contract, although they must (to a large extent) adhere to the GPL.

Have a look at Arch, Gentoo, Slackware, SuSE, RedHat, and tell me how closely they adhere to the Debian social contract or the Ubuntu philosophy. Sure, they follow the GPL to the extent that they need to, but that doesn't mean that there is any ONE "Linux".

[lykwydchykyn]

And one last thing...
No, it's not. Go peruse the GPL. It- or one of it's derivatives is on every bit of software that you will find in a vanilla install, down to the kernel and the drivers. Its enforcement is required by law, thanks to close scrutiny by bodies such as the Free Software Foundation.

We also have the Debian social contract, and I guess I could throw in the african philosophy of 'ubuntu' while I'm at it, even though that one is a little bit mushier.

The point is, those folks who say "Linux needs to focus on ________" are talking nonsense. There is no governing body over all of open source development dictating the direction it should go.

Keep my comments in the context of this discussion, which is about standardizing how DIFFERENT DISTROS behave. No one distributions 'social contract' has any relevance in this context, and licenses have nothing to do with it.

[rootless]

Have a look at Arch, Gentoo, Slackware, SuSE, RedHat, and tell me how closely they adhere to the Debian social contract or the Ubuntu philosophy.

Did you read the thread? I don't feel like typing everything again, so I'll just quote.

I learned linux on ubuntu, but dual boot it with Gentoo

And actually, Gentoo has a social contract, influenced by the Debian social contract. You can find it here http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml

Sure, they follow the GPL to the extent that they need to, but that doesn't mean that there is any ONE "Linux".

I won't even get into semantics over the use of the word "Linux" here... anyway, I never claimed that there was. Why would I? That would be a pretty dumb argument. In fact, I stated something to the contrary.

Some distros prize standardization and adhere more or less strictly to certain standards, POSIX, for instance. Others prize customization and tinkering. They each attract different kinds of people. Those people use, develop, and improve the kind of software that they like. The software is generally of very high quality because the developers have a personal stake in it.

Nonstandardization is evolutionary. Some distros will succeed and some will fail, but some of them will tend to live on, warp, and evolve to better suit the needs of their userbase.

This is the beauty of linux.

Essentially, my point is that the real beauty of Linux is that we DO abide by certain restrictions, but these restrictions and standards have set up a great framework for divergence and experimentation.

Are these standards perfect? Not by any means. The difference between .deb and .rpm makes a gigantic replication of labor for the packagers, but perhaps the reason one has not eclipsed the other is that this is evolutionary. I think it's great that we have Redhat working on the commercial side of things, and Debian on the free side. They each fill a separate niche. If they didn't, wouldn't we have given up one a long time ago?

All of these niche communities are still tied together by the GPL, the FSF, and the OSI. Most of the utilities, compilers, and interpreters that we use are the same. We just use them toward different ends, wrapped with (or in some cases, without) different DEs, package managers, and miscellania. That is where you'll find most of the nonstandardization.