Slashdot Log In
The Benefits Of Radiation On Linux
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Oct 23, 2000 04:29 PM
from the voted-"best-mutation-of-the-decade"! dept.
from the voted-"best-mutation-of-the-decade"! dept.
roblimo pointed out this article in Business 2.0 by one Clay Shirky, a professor of New Media at Hunter College. Shirky goes into the idea of "adaptive radiation," and makes some pointed observations about its effect on software, Linux specifically. An excerpt: "This will keep Linux out of the best of breed competition because it is never perfectly tailored to any particular environment, but it also means that Linux avoids the best of breed trap. For any given purpose, best of breed products are either ideal or useless." Shirky is an insightful commentator as well; he also set up a "Web Pay Phone" outside his office at Hunter a few years back. Now go mutate!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Benefits Of Radiation On Linux
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 84 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
To extend that analogy, though ... (Score:3)
Which would you rather have as a pet?
Mutts tend to be better behaved, healthier and smarter than the blue-bloods, at least when it comes to dogs.
Yeah, he's got a barb about Linux / Free software being unable to be "best of breed" ok, but it depends on what your context is to determine what "best" means. If your requirements include future flexibility and lack of royalties etc, then it could easily be the best.
timothy
Radiation and Linux? (Score:5)
--
Re:You realize what this means (Score:5)
"It means humans, while versatile, will never be the best at anything because of the way we are built and designed. By extension, this also applies to ANY organism which can survive outside of specialized niches: primates makes likeable apes instead of Bengal tigers."
I may be nuts, but I think it's very possible for a "likeable mutt" to wind up being the best overall, far and away, because these "likeable mutts" have no real Achilles' heels. The Bengal tiger is nearly extinct; human beings are still undergoing population explosion.
A Darwinian reason not to forget about the Desktop (Score:3)
As we have seen in many biological environments, evolution does NOT happen at a continous rate. Instead, species tend to evolve very significantly in a very short amount of time, and then stay pretty much the same untill this happens again. This theory is known as Punctuated Equilibruum, and is currently accepted in the world of biology. WHen mapped to software, each brief occurance of rapid evolution can be thought of as a software release.
Throughout History, these punctures usually result in an extremely rapid power shift. (Think of the chimps when Homo Erectus first showed up.) In the end, that species that wins is the most able to adapt. In other words, if this evolutionary model works (which it sure does seem to!) than the new release of a distro might cause the dominant OS to change extremely rapidly. Further, given the change in useability between Linux PPC 2.5 years ago, and Linux PPC right now, I think we are certainly on the right track.
Although the author of this article would surely disagree, Linux has the potential and will, become the dominant desktop (as well as server, and every other market) in the extremely near future. So don't give up!
Ok, I'll stop rambling now,
--Alex the Gnome Fish
Let me get this out... (Score:5)
Well frankly I am a mutator partisan. Paraphrasing Zhirinovskii, the reactionary political radical schizo here: "Mutate linux. Mutate the progs, the scripts, the source. Mutate the kernel! Everything should mutate, even the Tux the penguin and Torvalds." Maybe this is tooo radical. But still sounds good. As what makes linux is its capabilty to mutate. Think about what would happen if we sticked to "One License, one GUI, one Platform". That is exactly what M$ does. And that is what most companies do willingly or unwillingly.
If Linux had stucked into a strict environement then it would be never what it is now. Linux is the most multiplatform of all systems, from 86 to S/390. Meanwhile it is the systems that carries most of the Old and New World. In fact it is not only a continuation of UNIX but also of DOS and old Windows platforms. It even carries enough power to carry/emulate software from platforms that are long forgotten, such as ZX Spectrum or Commodore. Or to hold up emulation of weird platforms like Nintendo or Palm. It is a system capable of being a server or a desktop system. In this last point I should note that the author of the article is deeply wrong. linux is already ready for many desktops. I have seen/participated on the implementation of desktop systems for Internet & Office appliances. 68% of people don't want Windows back. And only a few stubbornly decry Linux as an Office system.
In one point I would still declare Linux a drawback. On vector design systems. Here Linux is still a way to go, even if Corel 9 is already out. On the rest Linux is already conquering. Yes, it is HARD to install it. To professionaly and carefully install it. But it is a system that works on the base "fire & forget". Once fired, technical support becomes miserable. So technicians are kicked to R&D, making its progress even faster and smoother.
It is mutation that makes this. And this is what M$ should be afraid of. Because this system is capable of inveding every computer and make it much more faster and reliable for a wide range of tasks.
However this should be taken with a few grains of pepper. Mutations are good if we can control them. If we change things too much then we may face future incompatibilities. But this does not mean keeping the kernel in one piece or flaming someone for choosing BlackBox against Gnome or KDE. The problem are not the changes but the rules of conduct to implement them. some sort of comitemments that would allow every program/mutation/patch/fix/implementation to live peacefully side by side. and to be used when they are needed, where they are needed. This is much better than having an abstract "Unity" on Linux.
Re:You realize what this means (Score:4)
As far as generalizing this to all Open Source project, though, I'd have to disagree. It really depends on how focused the project leader is and how much 'me too' syndrome there is hovering around it.
If the project is fairly low-key, or the developers are strict, the project will get the features it needs and people itching to implement something unnecessary will either not know about the project in the first place or go find something else to do. (or maybe even make a fork)
With more lenient project leaders, it's much more succeptible to "feeping creaturism" [everything2.com]. Instead of becoming specialized for one area, it gets the kitchen sink.
I'm not saying either method is bad, just that it is possible for open source to produce the "blue bloods". I'm a code optimization / embedded systems junkie, so I like to use code size as an example. IIRC, Linux was first coded on a 386, then as the hardware got faster and the features creeped in, Linux grew. It still works on the older machines, but probably not as well as it used to. XFree86 is another of those quite spread-out projects. It works on diskless terminals, big SMP machines, and it can even be crammed into an embedded system like the iPaq. But, a GUI specially designed for small systems will always be better at running on small systems and there's no reason it can't be open source too.
Ack! I've been rambling!
Benefit of Radiation, #224 (Score:4)
More radiation and he'll gain the power of speech: "Hello, Mr. Gates..."
- M
You realize what this means (Score:3)
Re:Two footnotes. (Score:3)
The missive you reference was written by Tim Cavanaugh. Tim does a bunch of writing for Suck magazine [suck.com], which is one of the few consistently good web 'zines out there (and in which, there ran an entire article about what Tim refers to as scare quotes [suck.com]. Don't know if he wrote it, though.)
Re:Let me get this out... (Score:3)
Besides GPL is a philosophy. And most licenses, in one way or the other reflect some sort of philosophy. Are you telling me that everyone should go to the ONE philosophy? Well I am a GPL partisan. Because I know on how to live with it. But should I enforce GPL on everywhere I go? NO! That's raw communism. That's the Wonderful New World, the Animal Farm. GPL should be presented as one of the best type of licenses but not the ONE license. I prefer to have Microsoft alikes roaming around here than building a new "Stalin skyscrapper" of ideals that are far from being perfect. To use GPL in full force you need to be a hacker. On all aspects. But not everyone wants/can be such.
Licenses should be many. Yes there should be interagreements between them. But let's hope no one manages to enforce a "ONE" license.
Re:To extend that analogy, though ... (Score:3)
//rdj
Two footnotes. (Score:3)
2) How does one become a "professor of New Media"? I guess I'm just surprised to see academes recognize a movement [outside their own].
--
Re:You realize what this means (Score:3)
That's not necessarily so. Take a look at OpenBSD, for instance. It's certainly Open Source (and Free Software for you FSFers), but it's also aimed quite narrowly at enhanced security applications rather than general utility. There are plenty of projects out there that are quite narrowly focused; it's just that their narrow focus tends to prevent them from getting the kind of really big publicity that Linux gets. You could even argue that OSS/Free Software is a perfect solution for the large number of problems that have too narrow a userbase to support a commercial product. If anything, I'd say that most OSS/Free Software projects tend to be too narrowly focused, since they tend to start out as attempts to scratch a particular programmer's itch rather than to be a generally useful program for a large enough group of customers to justify for profit development.