[linux-elitists] git and a sysadmin book
Wed Jan 14 06:09:00 PST 2009
"Karsten M. Self" <email@example.com> writes:
> on Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:23:15AM -0600, Jeremy Hankins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
>> But you are quite correct to point out that a system that can survive
>> high entropy conditions is even more desirable, and you're more likely
>> to find such systems in conditions of high entropy.
> Um, sorry, that's not entirely clear, typo? Is the last phrase supposed
> to be "high entropy" or "low entropy"?
No typo. It's supposed to be an evolutionary point, which is what I
took your original point to really be. Low entropy is not bad for its
own sake (for its own sake it's good), but bad insofar as it tends
toward situations where the system depends on low entropy for its
survival. If you want to find systems that can survive high entropy,
look in conditions of high entropy.
But this explanation depends on distinguishing low entropy (i.e.,
ordered and stable) from high potential. If high potential is part of
your definition of low entropy, I'll need some other term to describe
ordered systems that may or may not be high potential.
(Bringing this back to elitism, this is one reason one would expect, all
else being equal, open development models to be more resilient than
closed. Closed models are closed in part to maintain conditions of low
entropy. Open models aren't better because disorganization,
factionalism, and infighting are good, but because models that can
survive these things are good. Systems that must prevent these things
for the sake of their survival are not as resilient as those than can
survive some level of such silliness.)
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
More information about the linux-elitists