-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 06:40, Mark Kent wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:33:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote: > >>> Good analogy, because I'm not talking about whether change can happen or >>> not; I'm merely saying that an extinction event in one sub-group of a >>> population does not cause improvement in another sub-group. Even if >>> crayons could mutate, this would not mean that the red ones would >>> automatically "improve" because the green ones went extinct. >>> >>> I'm not saying that the surviving ducks would not improve (or degrade, >>> or stay the same); I am saying that the extinction of the >>> windmill-killed ducks does not automatically cause the survivors to >>> improve (or degrade, or stay the same). That's all I am saying. >>> >>> Arnt (I believe) and Atis implied that the extinction of an unfit group >>> leads to improvement in the survivors. I'm just saying that's not true; >>> the extinction of an unfit group only means that the unfit group went >>> extinct. The survivors were indeed "more fit" (for this purpose, and >>> however they got that way), but the extinction of the less-fit does not >>> automatically mean that the more-fit will get even more fit. >> That's right. The *survivors* don't improve; the *species* improves. >> > > Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is
Yes, exactly. > that which can breed. Those which die off can *no longer* breed, so the > improvement is in the *next generation* which have fewer of the > defective or no longer useful gene/genetic characteristics. The > successful genes are the ones which make it to the next generation, the > unsuccessful ones are those which do not. The term "survival of the > fittest" means that the "fittest", those most suited to their > environment, remain alive in order to breed a next generation. > > This is also why Darwinian-like selection can be seen to apply to > open-source projects and/or distros; those which make it to another > release are successful, those which become moribund are not. Looking at > a population of crayons is daft, however, looking at the success of the > manufacturers of crayons, say, is not quite so daft. In these cases, > the survival characteristics are clearly not genetic, but other > characteristics. The question you should consider, if you truly > question Darwin's theory, is why genetics should be any different to any > other evolutionary system, like business, open-source project survival, > or any number of similar systems. Should Windows never make it to a > release beyond Vista, it will be because it was no longer suitable for > its environment, perhaps less fit for it than Debian, say which hopefully > will continue to evolve. > > Doesn't anyone here learn science or economics? The first paragraph and a half were excellent, but you yourself shot down your own argument by saying /Should Windows never make it to a release beyond Vista, it will be because .../. It's delusional to think that Windows won't have a post-Vista version. With US$34Bn in the bank, US$12Bn net income per *quarter* and contracts that lock the Tier-1 & Tier-2 vendors into automatic licensing payments, MSFT has been making money hand-over-fist for 25 years, has a (at worst) 93% desktop share and no real reason for ISVs to make Linux version of popular software. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF+U4YS9HxQb37XmcRAsc9AJ9dTh9qeowDPHzlAIz2c7GUDeTB5wCaA2zH Zt1P4dkg6U7cBfZRC3K1qVU= =Y9gQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
