### Overview The discussion around Postel's Law highlights contrasting incentives in software development, particularly between open source and closed source models. Postel's Law, which advocates for being liberal in what one accepts and strict in what one sends, is brought into question amid various user opinions. ### Key Points 1. **Incentives of Software Producers**: - Closed-source producers aim to profit, which can lead to reluctance in adhering to specifications unless it serves this goal. - Open-source providers are more inclined to foster use and engagement, impacting their adherence to specifications differently. 2. **User Feedback Dynamics**: - Users tend to blame software that fails to load their work rather than the software they used to create it, often favoring the complaining cycle to fall on open-source software. - This aligns with historical issues like Microsoft’s commitment to maintaining backward compatibility, showing how commercial imperatives shaped long-term software behavior. 3. **Examples & Critique of Postel's Law**: - Users called for examples to substantiate claims about the application of Postel’s Law. Some referenced XHTML as a failure due to strict conformance rules leading to usability issues. - Critics argue that while Postel's Law was beneficial for early experimentation, it may not hold up as modern software practices evolve towards more stringent definitions for data interfaces to reduce errors. ### Conclusion The debate raises important considerations about the implications of software specification adherence and user expectations. Emphasizing strict definitions and type safety is seen by some as a way to prevent issues far more effectively than the liberal acceptance suggested by Postel's Law. This conversation can inform future software development strategies, particularly in aligning goals with maintainability and user satisfaction.