Anyone else seen this yet?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...red+Science%29

I wonder what the other organizational structures looked like.

When scientists take apart something that works very well, and compare it to something that has to be fixed frequently because it doesn't work as well, it just shows us that something that looks to us like it is perfect (the pattern representation of the Linux system) isn't necessarily so. On the flip side, something that appears to be greatly disorganized (e.coli) is actually a very highly functional system that is not easily broken.

Perhaps God knows more about designing the perfect system. By designing a system with built-in redundant parts that don't function exactly alike the overall structure is able to function in situations where a perfect model would fail.

Very interesting proposal by scientists, but if we're not careful we may make incorrect assumptions based on things we 1. do not know and 2. do not understand.

Good point, there's definitely a trade-off between low level complexity and high level complexity, and natural selection, by its very nature, weeds out designs that don't work. Maybe we should use natural selection for kernel development! (Random coding would probably be something even I could do )