Slashdot Mirror
The Benefits Of Radiation On Linux
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!
I know all analogies have breaking points, and I'm about to step over this one's ;)
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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Hmm, Wouldn't Radiation and Linux produce those "Mutants" That Microsoft was talking about in their anti-Linux Ad :)
--
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Restated:
"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.
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
Well, if I am still living in the same dimension I was 5 minutes ago then there is something real wrong 'round here. /. was mostly a pro-standartisation... If my head is still in its place I still remember posts talking about how good was RedHat and how bad were the kernel mutators... Well time seems in place. I don't see nothing strange 'round here. Is this and aftershock of /. getting hot about his journalistic quest? Maybe... A 180 degree move and not quite for the right place... Too much 180 degree.
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.
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". 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!
-- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
Tux grows to 40 times original size, stomps off to terrorize Redmond.
More radiation and he'll gain the power of speech: "Hello, Mr. Gates..."
- M
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
It means Linux, while versatile, will never be the best at anything because of the way it is built and designed. By extension, this also applies to ANY Open Source project: Open Source makes likeable mutts instead of blue bloods.
The missive you reference was written by Tim Cavanaugh. Tim does a bunch of writing for Suck magazine, 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. Don't know if he wrote it, though.)
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].
--