Linux-Advocacy Digest #316, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("John C. Randolph")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (redc1c4)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Scott D.
Erb")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:39:59 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is why I think Darwin's theory does not apply to software
> > > > development:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Biological evolution does _not_ look to the future (it cannot, for
> > > > there is noone to do the looking), but builds up on the past. - Software
> > > > development does nothing but look to the future (this has to be faster,
> > > > that could be coded more efficiently...).
> > >
> > > Evolution is the selection of the "best" survivor for the current environment.
> > > Assuming the environment is a steadily changing along a predictable pattern,
> > > then changes now, based on natural selection, better prepare the survivors for
> > > the future.
> > >
> > Nicely put, but wrong. "Predictable pattern" assumes an intelligence
> > surveying the environment, but, since evolution is not controlled by
> > intelligence, the changes in the environment are essentially random and
> > will always be so.
>
> A "predictable pattern" implies that an environment is slow to change, not
> necessarily controlled. The Earth's temperature is rising, not quickly, but
> slowly, in a predictable pattern.
>
> Apply heat to a solid body, it will slowly and predictably rise in temperature
> based on the amount of heat and the mass of the body. The Earth is like this.
> It is a very large mass which is very hard to change.
>
The rising of Earth's temperature is a phenomenon which takes millions
of years to even notice. Such changes are essentially imperceptible to
evolutionary mechanisms. In general, geology is either too slow
(tectonics) or too fast (volcano) for evolution to react to. Evolution
works on the climatological scale, and even then it can sometimes be
taken by surprise.
> >
> > > This is, in fact, how evolution works. It is only when we have had drastic
> > > changes that we have seen many species extinct within a small period of time.
> > > Normally there is time for random traits to develop into recurring traits if
> > > they allow a specimen to be more successful and reproduce more so than one
> > > without.
> > >
> > It is now widely (or maybe not) assumed that evolution works in fact in
> > a sort of "burst mode", due to how the environment changes: long periods
> > of stability followed by short periods of drastic chaanges (of course,
> > "long" and "short" are to be understood in the geological meaning).
>
> Regardless of meaning, "bursts" happen in periods measured in thousands, if not
> millions of years. These bursts actually prove my point, an initial shock is
> applied to the ecosystem, there will be a slow change which happens over
> thousands of years, or even millions, and new creatures develop.
>
I dunno. THese days there seems to be a tendency to explain our climate
in terms of relatively long periods of nothing happening much,
interrupted by short preiods of "interesting times" (in the meaning of
the Chines proverb, that is). This would imply that evolution would
follow this pattern: a long period of nothing really happening (every
species has its niche, no need to change); then a short period of mass
extinctions (caused by sudden changes in the climate), followed by
"evolution in action" (species moving into emptied niches, competition
and adaptation galore). This would also imply that a new species has
only a relatively short period of time to "get its act together" or be
outcompeted by a better candidate; once the niches are filled, evolution
kinda takes a back seat and waits for the next calamity.
> Catastrophic events i.e. comets hitting the planet, wipe out species. After the
> initial event, the ecology slowly works back to an equilibrium, during which
> time evolution is hard at work.
>
It may very well be that every change in the climate has catastrophic
properties: our climate has a very high feedback buffer, which may be
the cause of this.
(disclaimer: I am not a climatologist. These opinions are not to be used
to determine what dot.com shares one should buy.)
> > > >
> > > > 2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
> > > > it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
> > > > programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
> > > > he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
> > > > it is going to be).
> > >
> > > This isn't really true either. A particular module of software, especially OSS,
> > > can be guided by one person, but there are usually many people working on
> > > software projects with their own views and feelings about what should be in it.
> > >
> > > Plus don't discount the users asking for features, randomly changing the
> > > application to be more than it was before.
> > >
> > > Just look at the Linux kernel, I'd say it "evolved" it grew new features, it
> > > has all but lost the Minux file system. It is a picture perfect example of
> > > software evolution.
> > >
> > Still, evolution is an automatic mechanism, software is designed. I
> > can't see how you are going to reason yourself out of that.
>
> Do you know anything about chaos? If you take two sets of programmers, give
> both sets the same design specifications, you will get two entirely different
> products. People are random.
>
IMHO, "chaos" is a term invented in the eighties to mask a lack of
knowledge in a certain field. (addition of smiley left to the discretion
of the reader)
> > > >
> > > > 3. Biological evolution is never interested in the best possible
> > > > solution, only in a solution that works sufficiently. - (I have to admit
> > > > I got stuck here, because this is eerily reminiscent of how Windows
> > > > "works") Software development should (see my previous remark) be
> > > > interested in the best possible solution, to avoid needless future
> > > > labour.
> > >
> > > I would go this far either. Biological evolution is based on competition for
> > > reproduction. Good features win, better features often do better. Biological
> > > evolution refines, over time, the species until they are very well adapted for
> > > their environment. You can't say a cockroach is not an almost perfect creature.
> > > Long after we humans die out, the near perfect cockroach will still be here.
> > >
> > If a cockroach were a perfect creature, it would not go "Splat!" if you
> > trod on it.
>
> Why do you think that? An immortal cockroach would not be perfect. Perhaps a
> cockroach's position in the world is exactly what it is, and it seems perfectly
> suited.
>
> The cockroach has been around for longer than anything else, it is only your
> view that something other than species survivability is important. That's all
> evolution cares about.
>
> It may be very perfect at being a food factory for other creatures. That
> doesn't make it any less of a success, just not something I would want for my
> life. It may be a happy and fulfilled cockroach which becomes dinner for a
> beautiful bird. Giving its life for such a noble creature, happy indeed, lucky
> cockroach!
>
Species do _not_ evolve with the sole purpose of becoming food for
others! The evolutionary goal for every species is to preserve its genes
for as long as possible. This goal can be met in two ways: either the
indiviual lives forever, or its siblings will.
Solution No. 1 kinda clashes with entropy, but some trees seem to have
taken a stab at it. Solution No. 2 works for most species.
Your misconception about evolution is that it somehow has a built-in
mechanism to produce ever-improving species. This is not so.
> > Evolution tends to pick the first solution that can solve a
> > particular problem. Rarely this is the best possible solution, because
> > if the _better_ solution works, there is no reason to keep investing to
> > come up with the _best_ solution.
>
> This isn't true either. Evolution often has many parallel solutions competing
> for survival. Many times, competing solutions can coexist. How many types of
> ants are there? How many types of birds? There are constant wars between birds,
> insects, etc. All fighting for survival. Maybe in a thousand years, we'll lose
> a species of ant.
>
The mere fact that different species of birds, ants, grass, whatever
exist, proves that evolution does not come up with perfect species.
Otherwise we would have only one kind of each.
It is exactly because evolution does not produce perfection that
evolution exists.
Talk about Zen, eh?
> >
> > The idea of refinement over time would be correct, if the environment
> > would keep changing in the same direction (if the temperature would drop
> > constantly, we would see a constant refinement towards better-insulated
> > organisms). However, the environment canoot be bothered with pleasing
> > evolution, and it will do its own thing i.e. swing wildly into every
> > possible direction.
>
> You are forgetting competition between species, not just environmental factors.
> In changing environments, many species are competing for the resources. Hunter
> becomes hunted, others become food.
>
Again, the same thing. Take gazelles and cheetahs. They have evolved to
the point where gazelles are usually - but not always - quicker than a
cheetah, and v.v. The result is a stable ecology where stable
populations of each species exist. There is no continuous competition of
breeding faster variations of each, because that kind of competition
would destroy the ecological niche.
The point is: neither species is perfect (a pack of human hunters will
whack off the gazelle population in no time, and inbetween meals take
care of the cheetahs as well), but they are good enough for the
ecological niche they inhabit.
> The environment does not change drastically all that often, and when it does it
> often kills off many species.
>
I agree completely. The difference is that I consider these drastical
climate changes to be the main motor of evolution.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Now, if one insists on twisting Darwin's scientific theory into a
> > > > philosophical system (for which it was never meant BTW), one might come
> > > > up with a utopian construct (in the line of marxism) that said that
> > > > software _ought_to_ develop according to the laws of natural selection.
> > > > It'd be dead wrong, but one might fool a number of people for some
> > >
> > > Science and philosophy walk hand in hand. One can not realize that truths about
> > > physical universe and not internalize them. Philosophy is what bridges
> > > knowledge and understanding. A theory as profound as the origin of species must
> > > generate a philosophy. One may not agree with it, nor even intend it's
> > > creation, but it will exist.
> > >
> > It is very easy for me to realise the truths about the physical universe
> > and not internalize them. The biological environment essentially shows
> > me that the biggest bastard wins, yet I can choose to donate money to
> > charity.
>
> That isn't always true either. Smaller creatures, which can survive on less,
> can live longer on less than larger creatures during hard times. (Seems
> relevant these days.) Faster creatures can often outrun the larger ones. Slower
> creatures typically use less energy and can be in areas where larger/faster
> creatures can not exist due to a lack of food. Smarter creatures can outsmart
> larger or more powerful ones. There are lots of different combinations of
> features which aid success of a species.
>
> Evolution is not a simple theory, it is quite complex. The "survival of the
> fittest" is a fact. Understanding what is "fittest," is the hard part.
>
Can't argue much with that.
Sidenote: This discussion seems to be veering wildly off-topic, even for
COLA. If noone else is interested in participating, would you object to
moving it to e-mail?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:43:18 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > In reality, random mutations play a very minor part in how species
> > change. Genetics are far more important. Without sexual reproduction,
> > species change at a much slower rate; without mutations, we would
> > probably not notice any difference.
>
> I think this is wrong. It is through random mutation that new features are
> developed. A slight discoloration here, an odd shaped bone there, should one of
> these allow a creature to escape a predator, somehow survive better in an
> environment, or even be more attractive to the opposite sex, violla! something
> that will carry on to the next generation. If the offspring are successful,
> then we have a small step in evolution.
>
> There is precedent.
>
Just in case we are talking about the same thing: by "mutation" do you
maen the genetic variations that result from sexual reproduction, or
merely those that are the result from cosmic particle impacts?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 13:02:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:19:40 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Childish, ignorant, over-excited gibberish from a minor.
>>
>
>Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy.
>You lose
Actually, it is not using the ad hominem fallacy.
Here's how his response, formulated in an ad hominem fashion, would
look like:
You are a child, thus your opinions are ignorant overecited gibberish.
There must be a cause/effect connection between the dismissal of the
opponent and the dismissal of the opinion.
If there isn't, it's just a hasty dismissal and an insult, put in
a single post.
What on earth did they teach you in college?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 13:04:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:23:35 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> No. Again you illustrate why you aren't graduating from high school with
>> the rest of your age group. You and Hdlfjlsdloser are nazis. I didn't
>> mention communists.
>
>Since I and Hdlinneberger are both OPPOSED to socialism in any form,
>it's pretty hard for us to be Nazis, you moron.
>
>What part of National SOCIALIST Party do you not understand?
The part where the name of the party defines the ideology.
I'd say it's reasonable to describe yourself as a nationalist[1].
Are you a nazi?
[1] As opposed to the internationalist movement. Ever sung "The
international"?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:53:34 GMT
On 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>the program is written, breaking causality.
Breaking causality is a little strong. But the principle Max argues
would allow me to write a plug-in for Netscape and then to sue Netscape
to stop distribution of their browser that is now capable of calling my
new plug-in. That ought to be absurd enough a result to make someone
rethink their position. By now we both know he won't.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 13:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:56:07 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>> [...]
>> >If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>> >proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>> >border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>> >for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>> >
>> >What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>> >army" other than numbers?
>>
>> Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
>
>
>OK...now...for the NON-paranoid schizophrenic...
>What's the difference between a mob of "illegal immigrants" and
>"invading army" other than the numbers?
What they plan to do once they are in.
The chance of you being killed if you spot them.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:13:40 -0700
Isaac wrote:
> >There is a relationship to copyright law, in that copies made while
> >using the program are copies which must be authorized by the copyright
> >holder, unless the end user already "owns" a copy.
> >
> >Your comments about game consoles are interesting. I wonder how
> >extensively copyright law issues have been tested in that arena.
>
> I think for game consoles the issues have been thoroughly litigated.
I'm aware of the reverse engineering cases, which attempt to apply
copyright law to impede the ability to produce unauthorized games but
that is somewhat different than applying copyright law to prohibit end
users from from using unauthorized games. Have there been such cases?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 13:14:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:58:56 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>> > [...]
>> >>If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>> >>proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>> >>border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>> >>for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>>
>> Ok, then you support the right of the Cuban government to shoot down
>> Cessnas.
Note: no response from Aaron. Perhaps he agrees with Castro?
>>
>> >>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>> >>army" other than numbers?
>> >
>> >Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>That's not what I asked
Well, you ARE a paranoid schizo, so you probably can't see the difference.
I suppose that's why you have to ask.
>How about for those who are not paranoid schizophrenics.
Well, the most obvious one is what they plan to do once they get into
the country.
>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>army" other than numbers?
See above.
>Be sure to account for the fact that when Germany invaded Norway,
>the German soldiers entered the country without weapons or uniforms.
I have seen reports of that being a myth.
For example: http://www.magweb.com/sample/sconflic/co03wese.htm
>They simply met in warehouses across the country one night, broke
>open cases of uniforms and weapons...and when the sun rose, they
>greeted the Norwegian populace with the news that they had just
>be annexed by the German Army.
Well, what about the extensive minimg of Norwegian ports, and the
huge fleet that actually invaded Norway?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:02:48 GMT
On 3 Apr 2001 12:01:40 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:28:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Well, you might get lucky, but if your goal is to support an interface
>>(gimp plug-ins) that has only ever existed previously in a GPL product,
>>writing such a product would certainly bring up the question of whether
>>your work is derivative of the GPL work.
>
>It will not be derivative for several reasons:
>
>a) Because if it would, then GNU grep is a derivative work of AT&T grep.
>b) It is not derivative if it's based on a published spec. The spec is
> published. This has been done to death a bazillion times.
>c) It's common practice. If that's infringing on a license, then every
> programmer has infringed on everyone's license.
>
d) Such a thing would be an API copyright. The FSF explicitly denies
that they would ever sue on such a thing. Based on all of the cloning
of unix utilities they've GPLed, I suspect it's somewhat silly to
think that they could.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:24:31 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Any implementation of the "Win32" [sic -- LOSE32] API is inherently unstable
> due to poor design.
No, it's just that any stable implementation of that API is very likely
to incompatible with MicroSquish's implementation.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: redc1c4 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "delete the \".ies\""
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:54:18 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
(snipage occurs)
>
> You seem to enjoy taking trips paid by taxpayers to foreign countries
> where you can use shiny toys to kill people.
nawwwwwwww, he likes to *BRAG* that he's done such, but he's only been
places AFTER the festivities were completed. furthermore, he stated
without prompting that he'd apply for school, in lieu of deploying,
IF his current unit was ever mobilized for combat.
redc1c4,
all in all, he's just a "wannabe war hero", not a real one.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and
sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officers Guide
PMD
EOM
------------------------------
From: "Scott D. Erb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:15:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> I wonder how Scott Erb would feel if he gets his wish of an all-powerful
> government, and along the way, he gets carted off to some gulag....
Given that I oppose powerful government and in fact my biggest criticism of the
Left is that it too often ignores the danger of centralized power, your question
is based on a false premise. Since I've made my aversion to powerful government
clear earlier in this thread, I have to assume that you are also being dishonest
in making the statement you make.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
