As a matter of fact, open-source programmers do tend to converge on “common codes” as you might call them. The Linux operating system is one (although there are others), the X Window System is another, and common libraries like Gtk (for user interfaces), Opengl (for 3d graphics), and SDL (for multimedia in games) are others.

However, the same is true of all software, not just open-source software. Even more common than any open-source code are the codes used in Microsoft Windows. Windows as a base, the Windows GDI (for drawing), and DirectX for everthing a game needs are extremely dominant and common.

I do appreciate the parallel between programmers sharing building blocks and organisms sharing DNA, but it’s not an open-source thing. Any non-trivial program will make use of software libraries, which serve as their shared building blocks. DNA blocks as software libraries is a better analogy.

Still, I don’t think there’s a strong parallel between the development of software engineering practices and the evolution of early life. Software never went through a time of freely traded though ill-defined code snippets, and organisms never really worked together like open-source programmers. The comparison especially breaks down when you consider the fact that software is designed, while organisms are feeling through the dark, and reproducing when they don’t fall in an unseen pit first.

The evolution that matters in software isn’t in the source code, it is in the ideas that the software express or perhaps in the languages and techniques for creating software. I’ve always like the term ‘meme’ and you can see that it is the idea that unifies “spreadsheets” or “webservers” or “photo editing tools”, not the details such as the programing language used for implementation. across multiple project/products/companies source code is _not_ the equivalent of DNA. (the situation is different if you’re talking about multiple versions of the same program, as the code base ‘evolves’ over time.)

So that’s the software part about it, what about the open sourceness? Open source is about collaboration and pride and mutual benefit — which of these concepts apply to transgenic transfer of DNA?

So the analogy is, at best, flawed.

(Fwiw I’m a developer on the open source sofware CruiseControl and a co-founder of the now defunct open source hosting company OpenAvenue.)

Let’s say if I write a program that a lot of people find useful, then I’ll probably find a few other programmers working on it. And if they add useful features and fix bugs, then more and more people will use it, attracting more programmers, thus ending up with a great software package such as Apache or The Gimp.

If people don’t find my software useful, then I’ll be the only programmer and it won’t thrive. And the great thing is that the end users, whether just an average Joe like me, or a huge corporation like IBM, determine if a software package continues down the path of software evolution with some features sticking around and some not.

I know some of the commenters above already made this remark, but the GNU/Free Software movement is much older than that and, in fact, is/was the real engine behind all this.

Personally, i’ve been using GNU/Linux since 1994, which gives it at least ~12 years. But, for more on the history of this, i recommend the following links: Free Software Foundation, GNU, Free software movement, Free Culture movement, Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”, Open source and OSS/FS.

I don’t mean to advocate either way (although i do have a position on the matter), but just to put things under a more historical context and perspective and, thus, show that things are a bit different [and more intricate] than what’s written above.

Having said that, regardless of your (or anyone’s) position on this matter, i recommend watching a talk by Richard Stallman: it’s highly entertaining!

Anyway, i hope this information helps.

[]‘s.

Even at that time, the X11 system, EMACS, and a few other pieces of open source software were developed, functioning pieces. We had GCC (GNU C Compiler) installed on our NeXT machines because it was portable, etc.

Open source is definately older than 8 years old.

I’m a biologist who has been using OpenSource and Linux for quite some time now, and the parellels didn’t strike me at all.

Just been reading your book ‘Parasite Rex’ and came across this article yesterday. If I had read it a few years back, I might have become a parasitologist – for now, I remain a humble neurobiologist. Maybe I should think about Toxoplasma!!?

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040197

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html