Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.ACO.net!news.iif.hu!news.sztaki.hu!news.bme.hu!teto.sch.bme.hu!mingo From: mingo@teto.sch.bme.hu (Molnar Ingo) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 17 Dec 1995 20:41:57 GMT Organization: Technical University of Budapest Lines: 172 Message-ID: <4b1val$g9j@goliat.eik.bme.hu> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi <4agsg2$bqc@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4ai8rk$maf@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4aj6tv$g98@park.uvsc.edu> <4amduo$rnd@news.siemens.at> <4ao7hn$rf8@park.uvsc.edu> <4arkv4$las@news.siemens.at> <4att84$cqi@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: teto.sch.bme.hu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30610 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10641 Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote: : mingo@news.siemens.co.at (Ingo Molnar) wrote: (the parts i ommit means that i agree) : ] The problem is that science itself isnt the only "human activity" : ] that uses "global resources". So it has to "compete". : ] : ] If we take this very abstact, this is OK. But we live in a finite : ] world, and your model of "competing organisms" just creates : ] "super-entities", a well-known effect in the field of genetic : ] algorithms, in the real world they are called "monopolies". : ] : ] And these "super-entities" are stable too. : Yes. This naturally follows from the model. It's how you get : from individual humans to nation-states. The potential hole in : this model is in identification of as single "meta-super-entity", : which in this discussion is "the common good of mankind". : ] "Free market" exists only for infinite worlds. : That's a very entropic statement. I believe it to be in : error as well. The underlying assumption you have is that : human endeavor is zero sum for a closed system. I don't : think that this is provably true. no, it's not zero. But those super entities are macro-stable. You can get rid of them only if you change the dynamics. : ] Do you see? These properties are VERY different from normal matter. : ] So your arguments are not acceptable, to say the least. You dont : ] distinct between information and matter! : I *do* make a distinction. I simply want to amortize the : production costs to fund the production of more information. You amortize it with a *BSD licence scheme, but you dont provide for returning information into the "Public Information Pool". But the model you propose later, solves this kind of problem. : You want to socialize the information once it exists, without : regard to providing a domino mechanism for production of : additional information. You believe that information will : be created without economic incentive, but offer no scenario : in which this will inevitably happen. I sorry, but I can't : take that belief as one of my axioms without proof. I dont want that, but i rather want to socialize it that to let it "get lost". But i like your model of limited patent very much, so forget this thing. : I have to dismiss the normative qualities of "good" and "bad' : as they relate to information. Information is neutral. The : classic example used for this type of discussion is atomic : fission. Sure thing, absolute statements are simply monopolies. I wasnt clear enough. "good" or "bad" in the sense of logic, if the information is true or false. You have to use metrics, those systems are just ways too big. So if i say that Erdas solves a problem, this isnt an exact statement, because you cant prove it right now. So you have to say "it most probable solves this and this problem". I would call the even versions of NetBSD "good", and ... a badly broken system like my NNTP server "bad". Lets say, in this sense, Linux is "almost as good as NetBSD" (oops, now it's better, nay now it's worse :) : I agree that the information should not be destroyed. But I : agree because it is a common belief we share, not because you : have proven it. Well, if our world is reversible, then it really doesnt matter, we can reach the same state in a few quadrillion of megayears. But if it's nonreversible, then we should rather take care of things :) ( according to the current laws of physics, our world is reversible ) : The only real difference between information and matter you : have enumerated above is that of cost of replication. You : think replictaion should occur at individual discretion. I : think there should be an economic tie in to incent addition : production of information. Well, still it cant be (shouldnt be) destroyed, not so matter. So there wont be "information insurance companies", and related economic phenomena :) Such "small" differences might lead to a stable or instable system :) Fact: human activities like companies are a complicated system. And the "usefullness" of such systems is not measured in a direct way. A kind of dynamics is provided, which measures products by "money", a way of expressing human needs or content. This model is subjective too, in the heart of this system lies the individual, a driving force that has it's micro-metrics. Since human activities can be correlated, (ie. they interact), so a kind of clusterization happens: families, companies, football teams, MUDs, countries, "i hate freddy kruger" parties. So the point i'm trying to make: you have to influence the most basic entity, the "human". When the "human" gets "smarter", it makes a world better suiting it's needs. I still suppose that there are unlimited natural resources ... So the model we try to make shouldnt be THAT global, "lets put something into a pot, let interact everything with everything, it gets solved anyways". Humans are a pre-defined thing for quite a million of years, and the Laws of Physics are "absolute" too, in this timescale. (not to talk about the Laws of Mathematics) In this way, "getting smarter" is a pretty absolute statement, and not a subject to evolution! : ] Since information is handled like matter, currently, one : ] can only make models how it could be handled. Making models : ] about information handling is not the same as making models : ] about how organizsm should interact with each other. (ie. : ] i'm not dreaming, i'm just thinking) : I take this as a veiled referenc to intellectual property law : reform, which is of course at the heart of the intent of GPL. : I have suggested a much less drastic middle ground mechanism, : and I'll suggest it again: the software patent. This is a : compound word; I do not mean a standard process patent that : is issued for software. : Consider: copyright lasts the lifetime of the author plus 50 : years. Patents last approximately one quareter of a human : life expentancy. Of the two, patents are less onerous. : Consider a "software patent". It is a hypothetical instrument : that protects software for a set period of time, as copyright, : but requires a source escrow to activate the protection. After : the protection period expires, the source, in machine readable : form, and all binary copies become public domain. : At the same time, the possibility of patent and copyright : protection, in the traditional sense, is denied. Software : may only be protected by "software patent". : This contributes to the "public domain" in the same way as GPL, : without removing the economic incentive from companies that : are actively developing products. At most, you have to wait : until expiration to use their source to make a derivative, so : an active company is protected, while an inactive one is not, : since the company has up to the expiration period to improve : the product. A good comapny can keep two years ahead of any : potential competition. : And the information is never "lost". Yeah, this kind of dynamics defeats the simplest kind of super entities. (both socializm and capitalist monopolies can be considered as super-entities) (please read the last line of my .sig) : Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present : or previous employers. -- Copyright 1995. Ingo Molnar, mingo@hercules.elte.hu, Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part without license. License to distribute this work is available to Microsoft at $500. Transmission without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. !!!!! This patent expires in 5 years or on the day Bill Gates dies. !!!!!