[...]
> > I'd say it is better because the mutations themselves (individual patches)
> > go through a _very_ harsh evaluation before being applied in the "official"
> > sources.
> Which is exactly Victor's point. That evaluation is the design. If the
> mutation argument held water then Linus would apply *ALL* patches and then
> remove the bad ones. But he doesn't. Which just goes to show that on this
> mutation nonsense, he's just spouting off.
Who is to say that bad mutations can't be weeded out _before_ a full
organism is built? It seems not to happen openly in nature's evolution
(then again, there are non-viable embryos, various DNA repair mechanisms
that seem to go wrong all the time in certain parts of the genome, parts
that mutate very fast while others don't change, ...), but this is just a
metaphor, not a slavish following. We certainly (at least think we) can do
better than just random typing.
In your reading, the environment (which evaluates individuals) is the
design. Right (in the sense that you end up with individuals fit to that
environment), but also very wrong (as many quite different layouts will
work).
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/