On 12/9/20 1:58 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu 
> <mailto:tytso@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:40:19AM -0500, Clem Cole wrote:
>     > My point is that "intelligent design" doesn't necessarily guarantee
>     > goodness or for that matter,complete logical thinking.
>
>     There are some really great quotes, mostly from Linus, but I saw at
>     least one from Larry McVoy, here, on the subject of "Linux is all
>     about evolution, not intelligent design" here:
>
>     https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdA5WkDNALetBn4iFeSepHjdLGJdxPBwZyY47ir1bZGAK/comp/evolution.html
>     <https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdA5WkDNALetBn4iFeSepHjdLGJdxPBwZyY47ir1bZGAK/comp/evolution.html>
>
>     One of the quotes from Linus that is most pertinent for TUHS from the
>     above:
>
>         > There was a overall architecture, from Dennis and Ken.
>
>         Ask them. I'll bet you five bucks they'll agree with me, not
>     with you.
>
>
Ugh! Seriously, evolution vs design? Implying that software can result 
from stochastic processes (an oxymoron, if ever there was one), is 
unlikely. These are semantic gyrations. Unix, was designed... back of a 
napkin, maybe, but it didn't appear out of the primordial ooze. It came 
out of an ordered mind, was realized, was revised and revised again, but 
always guided by an ordered intellect. That said, the use of the word 
evolution to refer to the gradual change of something into something 
else over time (another semantic gyration) certainly applies and I might 
refer the casual reader to Ritchie's article of similar title, The 
Evolution of the UNIX Time-Sharing System, as a great example of this 
use. Other than this tenuous connection, I'd call this COFF material.

Will