From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] design issues in operating systems Message-ID: <20011203180423.J788@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20011203160800.D526A1998A@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20011203160800.D526A1998A@mail.cse.psu.edu>; from anothy@cosym.net on Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:07:49AM -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:04:23 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2f01bc54-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:07:49AM -0500, anothy@cosym.net wrote: > > why are people talking about design and evolution as though > they're mutually exclusive? > To a degree, that's the case, though. Design enforces rigidity and wherever there's flexibility there's also room for error, which is what design attempts to factor out. Flexibility is where adaptation occurs, with fatal mutations more the norm than the exception. > a good design is one which is simple enough to comfortably > allow for reasonable evolution. whereas i agree design _is_ > predictave, the results need not be static. > Simplicity in design (minimalism, in fact) is the ideal, in that its rigidity is limited to essentials and, hopefully, does not apply to the growth/evolution areas. My opinion is that one should formalise useful adaptations and absorb them into a design, which is the way I think we humans operate at an intellectual level. The difficulty is finding the motivation or vision to abandon baggage whose function is exclusively to provide a familiar environment. Remembering that in this forum I suggested not long ago that one should not underestimate the importance of familiarity :-) In this context, familiarity is just another evolutionary pressure and, I must point out, evolution has no foresight, its purpose is to increase the viability of an organism in the present, immediately adjacent environment. The mistake of assuming that evolution is progressive is evident even in Linus Torvald's statement quoted earlier: the implication is that an evolved Linux is somehow "better" that its predecessors. It could be agreed that it is better equipped for survival, but not necessarily superior in some intellectual sense. Materialists may well argue that that is all that counts, of course. ++L