Linux-Advocacy Digest #419, Volume #33 Fri, 6 Apr 01 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (Bob Hauck)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Bob Hauck)
Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Entry-level *ix positions?? (WesTralia)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Chad Everett)
Re: Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too invasive) (Chad Everett)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Rich Teer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:52:29 +0000
Sam Heads wrote:
>
> I thought I'd expand a bit on the discussion below, and provide a bit of
> biological insight, aswell as correct a few errors and misunderstandings.
>
> --
> Sam Heads
> Palaeobiologist
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think Darwin was right, I mean
> really
> > > right, EVERYTHING works by survival of the fittest.
> > >
> > No it doesn't. Only biological evolution in a non-controlled environment
> > will evolve according to the principles of natural selection.
> > Present-day human societies do not follow the principles of natural
> > selection (care for the handicapped and the elderly are two very obvious
> > examples).
>
> <snip>
> SH: You are quite clearly misunderstanding evolution. For a moment, try
> to understand that everything evolves. Evolution is not strickly a
> biological principle. Wilbert was incorrect by stating that everything
> evolves according to natural selection - this is wrong - but you are equally
> as wrong in stating that biological evolution depends totally on natural
> selection in a non-controlled environment. I presume from this statement
> that you have not read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin? The first
> chapter of 'The Origin' is entitled "Variation under Domestication". Here
> Darwin discusses human _conscious control_ over evolution. Take agriculture
> for example - for centuries humans have _artificially selected_ the plants
> and animals with the most desirable qualities and characteristics. They have
> then bred the "best" plants and animals together in order to produce crops
> and livestock which consistently express the desired qualities and
> characteristics. Domestication of household pets - particularly dogs - is
> another fine example of concious artificial selection resulting in the
> evolution of another organism. Perhaps all involved in this discussion
> should view evolution as descent through modification, rather than simply
> considering evolution and natural selection as being synonymous. It must be
> understood that humans have, under a controlled environment, directed the
> evolution of certain species over successive generations of artificial
> selection, to produce organisms which may be so different from their
> ancestor that they may be considered a seperate species. In this situation,
> it can not be denied that evolution has taken place, but under artificial,
> _controlled_ circumstances.
I agree that the terminology of this discussion is suffering badly from
terminology clutter. But I distinctly remember writing that evolution
through _natural_ selection is only possible in an uncontrolled
environment (not only do I remember, but I peeked at the quoted text
<G>). I don't see how one can fit domestication in the natural selection
slot.
Which was my point.
Sort of.(*)
> >
> > > The problem is when we try to understand what "fittest" is. The
> "fittest"
> > > entity is very hard to predict, even when one is down does not mean it
> is out.
> > > Sometimes, a small detraction is seen in a creature, but a resurgence
> often
> > > follows. Think of the Wolf and Coyote in the U.S. Once thought to be all
> but
> > > gone, are well on their way back. They are natural survivors.
> > >
> > And how much of that is because of human intervention?
>
> <snip>
> SH: The example of Wolf and Coyote reappearance in North America is not
> an example of any form of evolution, natural or artificial. It is an example
> of a thankfully successful conservation scheme. An interesting point however
> was raised - _organism fittness_. Fitness, in a biological sense is very
> important. A species' fittness determines it's ability to survive in a
> natural environment. Fitness however, is not as fixed as it may seem. For
> example, humans are fairly well adapted to our environment (although in
> comparison with other organisms, we are particularly poorly adapted).
> However, put a human up in space for 4 weeks aboard a space craft of some
> sort, and our fitness drops considerably. Humans are hardly adapted at all
> for a life in a zero gravity environment. In fact, no organism on Earth is,
> simply because every living thing on this planet evolved with gravity as a
> significant limiting factor. So, on Earth - in the ocean - a blue whale has
> a very high fitness - it is well adapted to its environment. Up in space, on
> board a space craft, it has very little fitness at all. Put a blue whale in
> the middle of the Sahara desert, and it has no fitness - it is not adapted
> at all, and will not survive. Fitness therefore is a measure of an
> organism's level of adaptation to its environment and its ability to
> function successfully in its niche. Wilbert seemed to suggest that fitness
> is hard to detect and quantify - this is not true. When we look at a blue
> whale, we can see straight away that it has a high fitness - simply by
> looking at the whales body plan we know that it is virtually perfectly
> adapted to its environment, and that these adaptations allow it to function
> with a high success rate in its niche - streamlined body to reduce drag when
> swimming, respiratory opening on the dorsal surface to allow breathing when
> surfaced.......... etc.etc. We can also detect and quantify an organisms
> lack of fitness. Take the blue whale's ventilation system - it has a gas
> exchange system of similar design to all mammals - it breaths, and has
> lungs. This is quite obviously a highly inefficient means of gas exchange in
> an aquatic environment. Gills are the best means of gaseous exchange in an
> aquatic niche. Lungs are one of the worst things to have when living under
> water, as they have a tendancy to absorb the wrong gases (nitrogen mostly),
> at high pressures (ie, in deep water) and even implode. The reason a whale
> still has lungs is because of its terrestrial ancestory - the whale's
> closest extant (living) relative is the hippo. They share a common ancestor.
>
You don't see me disagreeing. Evolution (that is: biological evolution
through natural selection of the fittest) has two principles: Adapt to
the environment, and: Never go back (once you've got lungs, you can't
turn them in for gills anymore).
At least (and correcting myself), I don't think there is a recorded
example of devolution (in the strict meaning that is: going back to a
previous level of development).
As far as adaptation to the environment goes: humans tend to adapt the
environment to their needs, rather than the opposite. Hence fire, SUV's
and space stations. Doesn't this kinda support my unfounded belief in
humans no longer evolving according to natural selection (see below)?
> >
> > > If you want to get real into the whole darwin thing, the idea of
> unregulated
> > > everyone for themselves capitalism is very new and unproved. Typically,
> tribes
> > > or communities would work as a group and trade as a group, this anything
> for a
> > > buck mentality has always been frowned upon in the past.
> > >
> > OK, but Darwin's theory has absolutely nothing to do with economics. It
> > is a _biological_ theory, which only works because of the absence of
> > conscious control.
>
> <snip>
> SH: I am not an economist so I cannot comment on any economic theory,
> but I must point out that evolution does not rely on the absence of
> conscious control, and that it is not solely a biological theory. Darwin
> addressed biological evolution, but surely you have heard of inorganic
> evolution. The evolution of chemical particles - molecular evolution. Even
> the evolution of the biochemical pathways of photosynthesis and respiration
> are the result of some initial abiotic evolution of the involved molecules
> and reactions. In a natural (uncontrolled) environment, chemical/molecular
> evolution occurs much like biological evolution - according to the principle
> of natural selection. Nowadays, chemists generate new molecules - synthetic
> polymers for example - by artificially selecting molecules with desired
> properties, and joining them together to make totally new molecules which
> otherwise, would not exist in nature (much like the domestic dog).
I agree that evolution is a term that is applicable to a lot of
processes of change, but the initial statement in this thread was that
the development of software is akin to biological evolution by means of
the survival of the fittest.
However, most people seem to be talking about the _marketing_ of
software, which, according to them, can be compared to above evolution.
IMHO, we have more than sufficient economic models to describe this
process, without the need to resort to a less than perfect analogy with
biological processes.
> >
> > > Open source is more like successful human behavior than is the closed
> source
> > > model. Open Source works on a community level. We as a community share
> what we
> > > do, and trade on the output of the whole. The Microsoft's of the world
> can't
> > > hope to compete in the long run. Sooner or later, the sheer number of
> open
> > > source developers will be able to out produce every software company.
> Since we
> > > share our results we slowly build a mass of reusable code, where as
> companies
> > > that come and go never accumulate.
> > >
> > Fine. I agree with all that. But _please_ use economic models to explain
> > and extrapolate, not biological ones.
>
> <snip>
> SH: I agree that when addressing economic matters, economic theory
> hsould be used to argue and clarify. The point about successful human
> behaviour is interesting. It reminds me of an earlier point regarding human
> care for the sick and elderly as defying natural selection. This again is
> wrong. For starters - human behaviour, like all animal behaviour, is the
> result of evolution (yes behaviour and psychology evolve too!). Humans are
> primates, and share many primate behavioural traits. Care of sick and
> injured individuals etc. is noteable in Chimps and other primates. In fact,
> care of the sick, injured and elderly can be seen in many species,
> especially where the total population is low, and thus, when survival of the
> species depends on it. Such behaviour has even been noted in Tyrannosaurian
> dinosaurs - "Sue" - the famous _Tyrannosaurus rex_, suffered a badly broken
> femur (thigh bone) during life. If we are of the opinion that care for sick,
> injured etc. is not natural, then Sue would not have survived because she
> would have starved to death, or been killed by scavengers etc. We know for a
> fact however, that Sue did survive, because the femur healed. The only
> explaination for this is that Sue was cared for (protected, fed etc.) by
> other members of her family group while she was immobile. It was (perhaps
> ironically) a bite to the base of her cranium by another _T.rex_ much later
> in life, which actually killed her instantly when it crushed her brain stem.
>
Um. If Sue's femur healed, that only proves that her femur healed. For
all we know, she could have spent a year next to an apatosaurus carcass,
which would not require the postulation of caring and loving
tyrannosaurs. Remember the osteodentokerato-fiasco!
As for my private beliefs that the human species is no longer evolving
according to the principles of natural selection, this is an entirely
unfounded and intuitive belief. I might add that the idea surfaced when
reading Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy for the umpteenth time: He
postulated a "psychohistory" (a non-existent science which can predict
future actions of large groups of humans), which only works if the
subjects are not aware of its principles. It struck me that the same
thing might apply to natural selection. I do not, however, use this
belief of mine as an argument (since that would be silly).
> It seems that Karel Jansens is not particularly fond of the use of
> biological theory to explain software development - and probably quite right
> too! - as software development (evolution?) cannot be explained in
> biological terms - simply because it isn't biological!
> However, the use of evolutionary theory, both biotic and abiotic, is
> applicable, even if used only as comparison. It seemed to me that a lack of
> knowledge in the field of evolutionary theory has caused many problems and
> misconceptions in this dicussion, and I can only hope that my contirbutions
> here have been helpful in clearing them up!
>
> Finally, I cannot comment on whether their are any similarities between
> biological evolution and open source software, because I don't know much
> about open source - I am hoping to learn however from this news group, as I
> do have an interest in software - however limited my actual software
> knowledge is.
>
IMHO, one of the best descriptions of how open software came to be, and
how it "evolves", can be found in Eric Raymond's "the Cathedral and the
Bazaar". The text can be found on several places on the Net and a simple
Google with the above terms will turn it up readily. I don't think he
mentions Darwin even once.
Thank you for your imput and for correcting yours truly ignorant.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
(*) Late afterthought: Isn't saying that "everything evolves", the same
as saying "There is entropy"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:54:19 GMT
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:27 GMT, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The desktop isn't affected, the window look is that of
>Sawfish, but kdeinit and kdm remain loaded after you exit
>konqueror, and you must terminate them manually.
This is fixed in KDE 2.1. The support processes will terminate after a
minute or so of no KDE apps running.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:59:10 GMT
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:41:30 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Part of those phantom disconnects are caused by the local PBX. (telco)
The worst problem I have with my ISP is actually Verizon's
fault..."we're sorry, all circuits are busy now, please try your call
again...".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:23:20 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:43:41 GMT...
...and Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds tempting. I don't particularly want to run the KDE
> > desktop, but would it be possible to just compile KDE support
> > libraries for Konqueror to use, without subverting my system to the
> > will of KDE?
>
> I run Konqueror under Blackbox just fine with no KDE desktop running.
> I do have all of KDE2 installed though, because I do use it sometimes,
> so I can't tell you exactly how much of it you need.
Qt, the libraries and the KDE base package is enough. However, I must
confess that when I tried it, I was less than impressed by Konqueror.
Probably I've been spoilt by Mozilla, which works fine on my machine.
I don't use Mozilla itself anymore, though. My primary browser is
Galeon, which uses the Mozilla engine, offers a fine GNOME interface
and has many of the interface innovations of Opera and some of its
own, i.e.:
- tabbed browsing (best thing since sliced bread)
- zooming
- an "Up" arrow in addition to the back/forward arrows
- an excellent bookmark manager
- smart bookmarks (with built-in string query, great for search
engines
- full-screen mode
- display of animated GIFs is configurable
- cookie manager
- session management with crash recovery
- automatic bookmarking of often-visited pages
- "My Portal" start page built right into the browser
- ...
Everyone should at least try it out. It's one of the greatest Linux
programs I know, and development on it goes on at an amazing speed.
One setback is that you need a working Mozilla rendering engine on
your box.
mawa
--
Chefbegr��er!
Chlorbrillentr�ger!
Coverbandschlagzeuger!
Cookies-Deaktivierer!
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Entry-level *ix positions??
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:02:22 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> WesTralia wrote:
> >
> >
> > And once you get your UNIX network all setup be sure to change the
> > X-Mailer header string in your news reader. This will give you firewall
> > like security if you ever surf the net from your new network. Also,
> > once you get your UNIX sys admin job, remember to never use the web
> > browser on the local machine at work.
>
> Not *POSTING* USENET NEWS from a client's machine != never browsing from
> a client's machine.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
Oh! It helps, it helps a lot! Your story is so muddled that I cannot
believe that you are still clinging on to it.
> > Always use a modem to dial-up
> > your (remote) home machine and then do a remote login. Once you
> > are logged in you can pull up your web browser across the slow modem
> > connection from the remote machine to your local machine at work.
>
> Usenet news activity doesn't require a high speed connection.
> 9600 bits/second is quite sufficient.
>
Netscape across a 9600 modem! You are a riot!
> > The reason you wnat to do this is for security! Remember that your
> > news reader at home has the X-Mailer string changed so as to provide
> > you with security when surfing the net.
>
> What OS am I running?
> What newsreader am I using?
>
This is too easy!
1. Windows 98
2. Netscape for Windows 98 news reader
> >
> > Are you getting any of this?
> >
>
> Yeah...you don't understand the first thing about camoflauge.
>
You poor little fleeb. You have been OUTED! LOL!!! LUSER!
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Apr 2001 11:17:26 -0500
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:52:29 +0000, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You don't see me disagreeing. Evolution (that is: biological evolution
>through natural selection of the fittest) has two principles: Adapt to
>the environment, and: Never go back (once you've got lungs, you can't
>turn them in for gills anymore).
>
>At least (and correcting myself), I don't think there is a recorded
>example of devolution (in the strict meaning that is: going back to a
>previous level of development).
>
>As far as adaptation to the environment goes: humans tend to adapt the
>environment to their needs, rather than the opposite. Hence fire, SUV's
>and space stations. Doesn't this kinda support my unfounded belief in
>humans no longer evolving according to natural selection (see below)?
>
Unlike what some people like to believe (usually die-hard Darwinian
evolutionists and animal rights activists), Humans are not just another
kind of animal. This kind of thinking tends to devalue Human life.
Humans are special creatures unlike any other species. Not all Human
qualities were created by biological evolution and natural selection.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too invasive)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Apr 2001 11:20:38 -0500
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:23:20 +0000, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:43:41 GMT...
>...and Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Sounds tempting. I don't particularly want to run the KDE
>> > desktop, but would it be possible to just compile KDE support
>> > libraries for Konqueror to use, without subverting my system to the
>> > will of KDE?
>>
>> I run Konqueror under Blackbox just fine with no KDE desktop running.
>> I do have all of KDE2 installed though, because I do use it sometimes,
>> so I can't tell you exactly how much of it you need.
>
>Qt, the libraries and the KDE base package is enough. However, I must
>confess that when I tried it, I was less than impressed by Konqueror.
>Probably I've been spoilt by Mozilla, which works fine on my machine.
>
I agreed with you here....until KDE 2.1 I have gone back to using
Konquerer in KDE 2.1 and am quite impressed. It really is a new beast.
I'll have to give Galeon a try though.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:44:25 +0000
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:52:29 +0000, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >You don't see me disagreeing. Evolution (that is: biological evolution
> >through natural selection of the fittest) has two principles: Adapt to
> >the environment, and: Never go back (once you've got lungs, you can't
> >turn them in for gills anymore).
> >
> >At least (and correcting myself), I don't think there is a recorded
> >example of devolution (in the strict meaning that is: going back to a
> >previous level of development).
> >
> >As far as adaptation to the environment goes: humans tend to adapt the
> >environment to their needs, rather than the opposite. Hence fire, SUV's
> >and space stations. Doesn't this kinda support my unfounded belief in
> >humans no longer evolving according to natural selection (see below)?
> >
>
> Unlike what some people like to believe (usually die-hard Darwinian
> evolutionists and animal rights activists), Humans are not just another
> kind of animal. This kind of thinking tends to devalue Human life.
> Humans are special creatures unlike any other species. Not all Human
> qualities were created by biological evolution and natural selection.
Well, I'm most certainly not a die-hard Darwin fan (although I do
recognize the old chap for the genius he was) and I spit on animal
rights activists (as long as there are still violations of human rights
to defend, I couldn't care less about some lizard going extinct; and all
animal lovers should be locked up in some Chinese or South-American
torture cell), but I _do_ believe that everything we are we became
through the "normal" mechanisms of evolution and selection. Why should
God go through the trouble of creating us separately if He already got
this marvelous mechanism of evolution and selection set up?
Disclaimer: Author is not God and cannot be held accountable for Gods
opinions.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:54:08 GMT
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Per Espen Hagen wrote:
> I would like to know then, what format would *you* use if you need to send a
> mail where plain ASCII is just inadequate? For instance, if you need tables
> (which look like crap in ASCII if the recipient uses a variable-width font),
> more advanced highlighting than the *bold* _underline_ /italic/ plain-text
> toys, etc?
>
> IMHO, HTML is very well suited for this. These days, almost anyone who can
You're right: HTML is very suited to this. So, you send people a URL to the
document in plain text, and they use a web browser to read it. It's as simple
as that.
Honestly, I think too many people favour form over content.
> it as an HTML document and send it as an HTML attachment. Please tell me
> about a better solution; I certainly can't think of any.
Use a web page, or send it as PostScript.
> The only alternative format I can think of, is PDF. Which is a proprietary
> format, generally requires more work to produce, and is more or less
> uneditable for most people.
I don't want people editting my documents anyway! If they have comments,
they can send them to me (plain text, of course), and *I'll* update the
document.
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
