10 Dec
2020
10 Dec
'20
2:30 a.m.
On 12/9/20 1:58 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o
<tytso(a)mit.edu
<mailto:tytso@mit.edu>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:40:19AM -0500, Clem Cole wrote:
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
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/ev…
<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.