Evolution Of Debian Package Dependencies Resemble Predator-Prey Relationships

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have performed an ecological analysis of software packages in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution over time; they found that dependencies can be successfully modeled as a predator-prey relationship."

Comments

Deep research indeed!

[m4c north]

FTFA:

The team went back to 1993 and compiled statistics on every major stable release

In other words, "The team compiled statistics on the last three major releases".

Re:Deep research indeed!

[X0563511]

You must be a release or two behind. the package 'sense-of-humor' had a critical bug that was recently fixed.

Pure nonsense

[Chemisor]

Once again, people versed in one discipline apply their skills to another with results that sound fancy and expensive, while really are just nonsense.

Re:Pure nonsense

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Once again, people versed in one discipline apply their skills to another with results that sound fancy and expensive, while really are just nonsense.

Not really. Trial and error is at the heart of evolution which can apply just as easily to living organisms, memes, or software (which is actually a form of meme). It just happens to work quicker on the latter. Predator-Prey relationships are merely an extension of evolution, and is all about inter-dependance. If a package depends on another, one could be considered predator, and the other prey. If development slows on that which is depended on, then the predator must find new prey or face lower numbers and/or extinction.

The greater mistake is a myopic view of disciplines, thinking that nobody else can contribute to the understanding of another discipline except those who specialize in it.

Re:Pure nonsense

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Let me see if I can put this on context for you: Life doesn't debug, debian does.

It's called reproduction. Failure in life results in decreased chance of reproduction, including the ultimate decreased chance, death.

Dependencies compete for limit resources called developers. Just look at all the various sound systems Linux has gone through. They, and the software that depends on them fight to gain more users to thus draw more developers. And, they either live and reproduce, or die.

You are thinking of predator-prey wrong. It's not about eating by about parasitic relationships. And biology is very good at that. What this can show a developer is, based on known algorithms of life and chances of survival, which pieces of software are most in danger of extinction. And that's not always obvious. A music app might be facing extinction because of a particular reliance on a codec dependency that is slowly losing support in favor of another. It let's the developer see further down the road.

Re:Pure nonsense

[Kamiza Ikioi]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2541160&cid=38152056 - Laid out here. It can lead developers to spot problem applications, that, though popular enough now, may be relying on a few key dying dependencies... a sort of hidden death that without enough developers, the software, though popular, could quickly deteriorate and die.

I'd use an example, but I'll inevitably piss someone off if I mention any packages.

Re:Pure nonsense

[pclminion]

If a package depends on another, one could be considered predator, and the other prey. If development slows on that which is depended on, then the predator must find new prey or face lower numbers and/or extinction.

Dammit, this other package my package depends on is just too fucking stable! It never changes! Every day it's just the same damn thing again! I need to base my package on something that's more of a moving target. Otherwise I run the risk of my own software becoming... (shudder) STABLE.

Mandatory XKCD

[Urban Garlic]

... is here.

Title is wrong.

[sconeu]

People in Kansas know that the Debian Package Dependencies were Intelligently Designed!!!

This has many potential applications

[hyades1]

I sometimes suspect that my former marriage could have been successfully modeled as a predator/prey relationship.

Re:First post

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes, I see their point, but I think this has been taken further by the Debian derivatives.

There are Badgers, Lynx, Narwhals and Ocelots, ferchrissake! I hardly think that, cruel as he is, "Sid" is any kind of predator. And "Hamm"? Surely you're joking!

Re:Genesis 1:1

[healyp]

Why would God be using sudo?

Re:Genesis 1:1

[qualityassurancedept]

Actually, I guess sudo probably wouldn't be installed right off the bat but yes he could just su to root. running the universe as root is dangerous so he would be better off creating an adminstrator/user profile like Jesus or something and then adding Jesus to the sudoers.