PDA

View Full Version : “That’s forbidden, Windows is not open-source.”



standingwave
May 5th, 2010, 08:28 PM
I thought this was cool enough to share...
A comparison of the networks formed by genetic code and the Linux operating system has given insight into the fundamental differences between biological and computational programming.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/05/e_coli-linux.jpg

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/linux-vs-life/

98cwitr
May 5th, 2010, 08:34 PM
care to define the colored lines for us there, champ? Are those proteins?

standingwave
May 5th, 2010, 08:43 PM
care to define the colored lines for us there, champ? Are those proteins?It's a pretty pciture. I did find the originating paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/28/0914771107). Near as I can figure out it's a map of something called the genetic regulatory network. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network)

sydbat
May 5th, 2010, 08:51 PM
I'm glad it wasn't a misleading thread title.

Oh, and the in depth analysis was helpful too.

K.
Thnx.
Bye.

JDShu
May 5th, 2010, 09:00 PM
My, people are snappy today.

Interesting article though. I wonder if the open source community can learn from and make the oss environment more robust.

RiceMonster
May 5th, 2010, 09:04 PM
I'm glad it wasn't a misleading thread title.

Oh, and the in depth analysis was helpful too.

K.
Thnx.
Bye.

agreed 100%

standingwave
May 5th, 2010, 09:17 PM
Interesting article though. I wonder if the open source community can learn from and make the oss environment more robust.Probably only within the confines of the hardware. Biological systems are amazingly redundant with an amazing amount of parallelism. It would be interesting to compare/contrast other operating systems but alas, the researcher could only analyze open source code. (I suspect that they would all look somewhat similar but the differences might be interesting.)

Foster Grant
May 5th, 2010, 09:49 PM
care to define the colored lines for us there, champ? Are those proteins?

From the article: "E. coli’s network proved to have a pyramid-like shape, with a few master regulators, more middle managers, and many workhorses. In stark contrast, the Linux kernel call graph — the network of interactions between different pieces of program code — looks almost like an inverted pyramid. A great many top-level programs call on a few common subroutines."

So E. coli's less efficient than the Linux kernel. :lol:

imblack
May 5th, 2010, 09:56 PM
What an interesting thing to read. Thanks for sharing mate!
Cheers :D

MaxIBoy
May 5th, 2010, 09:57 PM
From the article:

"If you update a low-level function, then you need to update all the functions that use it. That’s doable if you’re an engineer. You just go through all the code. But it’s impossible in biology," Maslov said.What?! No! That's rarely true. If you want to update an existing function, it's almost always just to make it do the same job, better. If you want the function to do something different, you probably should have been using a different function to start with.


Asked if human software engineers have outpaced natural evolution, Gerstein said the opposite was true. The computer model may be so extreme that it can’t be scaled to biological levels of complexity. “You can easily see why software systems might be fragile, and biological systems robust. Biological networks are built to adapt to random changes. They’re lessons on how to construct something that can change and evolve,” said Gerstein.WHAT?! NO!! It may seem like a good idea to crank out a ton of mostly-redundant functions which get used in few places, but it results in a horrible tangle. It gets so bad that, say, 50,000 years are required just to add a new feature. :p


If these guys are programmers, remind me to avoid their code.