On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:46:00AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -----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.
Umm, I didn't say that it wouldn't, I merely raised the question, and indicated what it would *not* have been, had it not made it. Ie., suitable for making more money. > 1With 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. > Unless MS have found something which makes them more money than releasing an additional version of Vista, which was rather my point. -- Mark Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
