#321 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 12:40 am
Subject: Project official website (though temporary) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
This is the project official website (though temporary):
http://jma.dnsalias.com/osfree/
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Part 11 - Feb 24 2002
Re: Part 11
#322 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:12 am
Subject: Re: Licence for this project - PLEASE ALL READ ! mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:24:35 +0100 (CET), Allan Holm wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:29:41 +0100, JMA wrote:
>
>>Licence
>>
>>Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
>>All rights reserved.
>
>Right then, as you have already claimed, that you are not
>part of the osFree Team - do you mind telling us,
>who this Copyright belongs to ? Company ? People ?
>
>I'm sure people will wants to know, who they are giving
>their own software/source away to.
>
This I have tried to explain.
The people that did the TPE (Technology Preview Edition) are no
part of the osFree project.
They used the name and managed to fool me and meny others.
I have stated this in this list and its stated on the website
http://jma.dnsalias.com/osfree
We are the osFree Team !
The people that did the TPE has been thrown out !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:12 am
Subject: Re: Licence for this project - PLEASE ALL READ ! mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:24:35 +0100 (CET), Allan Holm wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:29:41 +0100, JMA wrote:
>
>>Licence
>>
>>Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
>>All rights reserved.
>
>Right then, as you have already claimed, that you are not
>part of the osFree Team - do you mind telling us,
>who this Copyright belongs to ? Company ? People ?
>
>I'm sure people will wants to know, who they are giving
>their own software/source away to.
>
This I have tried to explain.
The people that did the TPE (Technology Preview Edition) are no
part of the osFree project.
They used the name and managed to fool me and meny others.
I have stated this in this list and its stated on the website
http://jma.dnsalias.com/osfree
We are the osFree Team !
The people that did the TPE has been thrown out !
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 11
#323 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:26 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:43:24 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>> The only way is to try it out.
>Who tells you that he didn't try?
>>
Tried all existing kernels ??
>I know a kernel which fits, it's the current OS/2 kernel.
<SNIP>
Thats exactly what I have tried to say in many messages.
I did NOT say we should use another kernel but lots of other
people (with FreeOS latency? did. Since the people that
talked seemed to want another way I tried to co.op. with them
and if possible make them see things my way.
Thanks, it nice to see I'm not the only one with this really good idea
Now we can agree and start the real work
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:26 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:43:24 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>> The only way is to try it out.
>Who tells you that he didn't try?
>>
Tried all existing kernels ??
>I know a kernel which fits, it's the current OS/2 kernel.
<SNIP>
Thats exactly what I have tried to say in many messages.
I did NOT say we should use another kernel but lots of other
people (with FreeOS latency? did. Since the people that
talked seemed to want another way I tried to co.op. with them
and if possible make them see things my way.
Thanks, it nice to see I'm not the only one with this really good idea
Now we can agree and start the real work
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 11
#324 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:28 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:08:45 +0100 (MET), Richard Gelderblom - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
>Yes, I also agree with this.
>
>And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
>much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source for
>the mo').
>
CONAPI ??
>Then eventually one could go completely 32-bit and there will be no need to
>rewrite all the 'old' 16-bit stuff as well.
>Also saves a lot of effort and *time* !
>
>I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit APIs),
>but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're asked
>to update their apps for a 'good cause'
>
The biggest problem here is that lots of old stuff are 16bit and its much harder
to
get hold of developers for these.
But the amount of 16-bit usermode apps (nondrivers) are pretty few.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:28 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:08:45 +0100 (MET), Richard Gelderblom - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
>Yes, I also agree with this.
>
>And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
>much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source for
>the mo').
>
CONAPI ??
>Then eventually one could go completely 32-bit and there will be no need to
>rewrite all the 'old' 16-bit stuff as well.
>Also saves a lot of effort and *time* !
>
>I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit APIs),
>but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're asked
>to update their apps for a 'good cause'
>
The biggest problem here is that lots of old stuff are 16bit and its much harder
to
get hold of developers for these.
But the amount of 16-bit usermode apps (nondrivers) are pretty few.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 11
#325 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:33 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:28:24 +0100, JMA wrote:
>>And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
>>much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source
for
>>the mo').
>>
>CONAPI ??
>
That's JdeBP's console API.
>>I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit
APIs),
>>but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're asked
>>to update their apps for a 'good cause'
>>
>The biggest problem here is that lots of old stuff are 16bit and its much
harder to
>get hold of developers for these.
>
Many 32-bit programs use the 16-bit console APIs - it's the only way to
control console I/O. Programs that use purely stdin/stdout can be fully
32-bit but any Vio/Kbd/Mou call is 16-bit.
Programs like File Commander/2 would be a perfect example.
Michal
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:33 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:28:24 +0100, JMA wrote:
>>And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
>>much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source
for
>>the mo').
>>
>CONAPI ??
>
That's JdeBP's console API.
>>I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit
APIs),
>>but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're asked
>>to update their apps for a 'good cause'
>>
>The biggest problem here is that lots of old stuff are 16bit and its much
harder to
>get hold of developers for these.
>
Many 32-bit programs use the 16-bit console APIs - it's the only way to
control console I/O. Programs that use purely stdin/stdout can be fully
32-bit but any Vio/Kbd/Mou call is 16-bit.
Programs like File Commander/2 would be a perfect example.
Michal
Re: Part 11
#326 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:47 am
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:13:35 -0000, sandervl2000 wrote:
>--- In osFree@y..., "criguada@l..." <criguada@l...> wrote:
>> So YES, let's write a complete free opensource OS/2 replacement, but I
>> don't see the point in this "multiple-personality" issue.
>So you only want to run OS/2 applications on that system. Guess what,
>there aren't that many left. Supporting other systems (windows or
>maybe linux) is inevitable.
>
This all depends on what you are after.
Yes a (atleast sort of) multi personality would be great but this should not
be something thois group care that much about.
Do we care about OS/2 driver support ?
If not we should work with our part, above kernel work.
>> And I think it would add a lot of sluggishness.
>And this opinion is of course based on your experience writing
>operating systems? No? I thought so, because it doesn't make any sense.
>
>I'm getting so tired of people with opinions about subjects they know
>little or nothing about.
>
Since I must assume you have not tried this yourself (building a opensource
os/2 ontop a multiple personalites kernel) the only thing we can relate to are
the existing OS'es with multiple personality.
If so Cris has his points. I know of no OS with dual or more personalities that
works great except possibly OS/2 running DOS and 16bit Windows.
- Windows NT's OS/2 16-bit textmode personality is no speed demon.
- MacOS on PPC ran (runs) 68xx0 apps but I doubt that would fit into
multi personalities since they use the same kernel/API layer.
- OS2PPC that was quite a step down from the thought in WPOS but
how good was it ?
So give me a good example or give me a kernel developer that can tell us
how it really is.
>Users can say all they want, but it is up to developers investing their
>precious spare time to decide how to design and implement it.
>
And for you the kernel is more important than the OS/2 API ??
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:47 am
Subject: Re: ReactOS / base for OS/2 compatible kernel (Was Re: NewOS) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:13:35 -0000, sandervl2000 wrote:
>--- In osFree@y..., "criguada@l..." <criguada@l...> wrote:
>> So YES, let's write a complete free opensource OS/2 replacement, but I
>> don't see the point in this "multiple-personality" issue.
>So you only want to run OS/2 applications on that system. Guess what,
>there aren't that many left. Supporting other systems (windows or
>maybe linux) is inevitable.
>
This all depends on what you are after.
Yes a (atleast sort of) multi personality would be great but this should not
be something thois group care that much about.
Do we care about OS/2 driver support ?
If not we should work with our part, above kernel work.
>> And I think it would add a lot of sluggishness.
>And this opinion is of course based on your experience writing
>operating systems? No? I thought so, because it doesn't make any sense.
>
>I'm getting so tired of people with opinions about subjects they know
>little or nothing about.
>
Since I must assume you have not tried this yourself (building a opensource
os/2 ontop a multiple personalites kernel) the only thing we can relate to are
the existing OS'es with multiple personality.
If so Cris has his points. I know of no OS with dual or more personalities that
works great except possibly OS/2 running DOS and 16bit Windows.
- Windows NT's OS/2 16-bit textmode personality is no speed demon.
- MacOS on PPC ran (runs) 68xx0 apps but I doubt that would fit into
multi personalities since they use the same kernel/API layer.
- OS2PPC that was quite a step down from the thought in WPOS but
how good was it ?
So give me a good example or give me a kernel developer that can tell us
how it really is.
>Users can say all they want, but it is up to developers investing their
>precious spare time to decide how to design and implement it.
>
And for you the kernel is more important than the OS/2 API ??
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 11
#327 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:59 am
Subject: Re: Re: Licence for this project. mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:25:36 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>>
>> >Licence
>> >
>> >Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
>> >All rights reserved.
>>
>snip
>>
>> I'm sure people will wants to know, who they are giving
>> their own software/source away to.
>>
>Actually that Copyright line shows again lack of legal
>understanding of copyright issues.
>The Copyright of a sourcefile stays always with the author(s).
>You can't give away your copyright, thats not legaly allowed.
>You can put source under GPL, and make it free to use etc,
>but thats a different. Even if you write code for your
>employer, you have the copyright, the employer "only" the IP.
>
Hello !
You just contradicted yourself.
If you write code for this project you donate it to this project.
osFree is your "employeer"
Its you that dont understand how opensource licencing works !
Take a look at the Apache licence:
/* ====================================================================
* The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
*
* Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights
* reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
*
So I must now assume that the licence Apache has is illegal ????
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:59 am
Subject: Re: Re: Licence for this project. mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:25:36 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>>
>> >Licence
>> >
>> >Copyright (c) 2002, osFree
>> >All rights reserved.
>>
>snip
>>
>> I'm sure people will wants to know, who they are giving
>> their own software/source away to.
>>
>Actually that Copyright line shows again lack of legal
>understanding of copyright issues.
>The Copyright of a sourcefile stays always with the author(s).
>You can't give away your copyright, thats not legaly allowed.
>You can put source under GPL, and make it free to use etc,
>but thats a different. Even if you write code for your
>employer, you have the copyright, the employer "only" the IP.
>
Hello !
You just contradicted yourself.
If you write code for this project you donate it to this project.
osFree is your "employeer"
Its you that dont understand how opensource licencing works !
Take a look at the Apache licence:
/* ====================================================================
* The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
*
* Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights
* reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
*
So I must now assume that the licence Apache has is illegal ????
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 11
#328 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 2:03 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:33:55 -0800 (PST), Michal Necasek wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:28:24 +0100, JMA wrote:
>
>>>And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
>>>much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source
for
>>>the mo').
>>>
>>CONAPI ??
>>
> That's JdeBP's console API.
>
Still not opensource.
People !!!
(not you Michal)
A opensource OS/2 clone cannot be build by finding lots of nice OS/2 addons in
binary form.
It has to have what OS/2 already has but in source.
Dont you get this ???
>>>I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit
APIs),
>>>but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're
asked
>>>to update their apps for a 'good cause'
>>>
>>The biggest problem here is that lots of old stuff are 16bit and its much
harder to
>>get hold of developers for these.
>>
> Many 32-bit programs use the 16-bit console APIs - it's the only way to
>control console I/O. Programs that use purely stdin/stdout can be fully
>32-bit but any Vio/Kbd/Mou call is 16-bit.
>
> Programs like File Commander/2 would be a perfect example.
>
Does this mean that the FC2 binary knows its a 16-bit API and calls it
like one with thunks etc. or does it mean it just uses shorts instead
of longs ??
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 2:03 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:33:55 -0800 (PST), Michal Necasek wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:28:24 +0100, JMA wrote:
>
>>>And one could also start using the CONAPI's (fully 32-bit) and get rid of as
>>>much 16-bit code as possible (forgetting the discussion about closed source
for
>>>the mo').
>>>
>>CONAPI ??
>>
> That's JdeBP's console API.
>
Still not opensource.
People !!!
(not you Michal)
A opensource OS/2 clone cannot be build by finding lots of nice OS/2 addons in
binary form.
It has to have what OS/2 already has but in source.
Dont you get this ???
>>>I don't know how many programs (or parts thereof) still use that (16-bit
APIs),
>>>but maybe we can also get other developers interested (again) if they're
asked
>>>to update their apps for a 'good cause'
>>>
>>The biggest problem here is that lots of old stuff are 16bit and its much
harder to
>>get hold of developers for these.
>>
> Many 32-bit programs use the 16-bit console APIs - it's the only way to
>control console I/O. Programs that use purely stdin/stdout can be fully
>32-bit but any Vio/Kbd/Mou call is 16-bit.
>
> Programs like File Commander/2 would be a perfect example.
>
Does this mean that the FC2 binary knows its a 16-bit API and calls it
like one with thunks etc. or does it mean it just uses shorts instead
of longs ??
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 11
#329 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 2:14 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:03:48 +0100, JMA wrote:
>> Programs like File Commander/2 would be a perfect example.
>>
>Does this mean that the FC2 binary knows its a 16-bit API and calls it
>like one with thunks etc. or does it mean it just uses shorts instead
>of longs ??
>
It means the compiler/linker know it's a 16-bit API and use the
appropriate thunks. That is pretty easy with OS/2 compilers and
the app writer just sees an API with USHORT parameters instead
of the usual ULONGs. For the most part app writers do not need
to worry about it at all (if they had to they would surely put up
some resistance<g>).
Michal
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 2:14 am
Subject: Re: Re: Linux + OS/2 layer michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:03:48 +0100, JMA wrote:
>> Programs like File Commander/2 would be a perfect example.
>>
>Does this mean that the FC2 binary knows its a 16-bit API and calls it
>like one with thunks etc. or does it mean it just uses shorts instead
>of longs ??
>
It means the compiler/linker know it's a 16-bit API and use the
appropriate thunks. That is pretty easy with OS/2 compilers and
the app writer just sees an API with USHORT parameters instead
of the usual ULONGs. For the most part app writers do not need
to worry about it at all (if they had to they would surely put up
some resistance<g>).
Michal
Re: Part 11
#330 From: Cary Renquist <crenquis@...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 am
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future crenquis
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:11:29 -0800 (PST), Lynn H. Maxson wrote:
>
>That means the translation of the requirements of the problem set
>into the formal specifications of the solution set. Experience,
>intuition, and creativity may take place, but their major role is
>to support the formal logic of the specifications. It is the
>logical equivalence of the problem set to the solution set that
>must be maintained. The major effort if the needs of the client
>remain paramount lies in producing the logical equivalence at
>minimal cost using minimal resources with minimal error achieving
>maximum performance. Experience, intuition, and creativity come
>into play only in so far as they support this.
Just a quick warped-perspective:
I've been skimming through your exchanges...
It seems that y'all are describing one of the
greatest code-database/instruction-processing
systems there is -- DNA/DNA-transcription.
Code tends to be conserved and reused in many
different ways... There is very little difference
between the code for limb development in fruitflies
and mice (and us). It is the way that the basic code
is used -- the sequence in which it is used.
Here is a snippet from an article I just read:
Using these clones, the researchers have
compared the sequence of both the protein
coding regions and the regulatory regions
of the relevant genes from bats and mice.
Considering the high degree of gene conservation
between even very distant organisms, such as
Drosophila and humans, Behringer and others
speculate that the difference between making a
bat wing and making a mouse front leg will come
down to gene regulation - when and where a gene
is used during development - rather than to novel
coding sequences.
Given the same database of code; a pedestrian programmer
might come-up with a toe, a creative programmer might
come-up with a bat wing... Not trying to imply that
creativity has anything to do with DNA transcription -- it
is the "experience" of the organism that is relevent.
Cary
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 am
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future crenquis
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:11:29 -0800 (PST), Lynn H. Maxson wrote:
>
>That means the translation of the requirements of the problem set
>into the formal specifications of the solution set. Experience,
>intuition, and creativity may take place, but their major role is
>to support the formal logic of the specifications. It is the
>logical equivalence of the problem set to the solution set that
>must be maintained. The major effort if the needs of the client
>remain paramount lies in producing the logical equivalence at
>minimal cost using minimal resources with minimal error achieving
>maximum performance. Experience, intuition, and creativity come
>into play only in so far as they support this.
Just a quick warped-perspective:
I've been skimming through your exchanges...
It seems that y'all are describing one of the
greatest code-database/instruction-processing
systems there is -- DNA/DNA-transcription.
Code tends to be conserved and reused in many
different ways... There is very little difference
between the code for limb development in fruitflies
and mice (and us). It is the way that the basic code
is used -- the sequence in which it is used.
Here is a snippet from an article I just read:
Using these clones, the researchers have
compared the sequence of both the protein
coding regions and the regulatory regions
of the relevant genes from bats and mice.
Considering the high degree of gene conservation
between even very distant organisms, such as
Drosophila and humans, Behringer and others
speculate that the difference between making a
bat wing and making a mouse front leg will come
down to gene regulation - when and where a gene
is used during development - rather than to novel
coding sequences.
Given the same database of code; a pedestrian programmer
might come-up with a toe, a creative programmer might
come-up with a bat wing... Not trying to imply that
creativity has anything to do with DNA transcription -- it
is the "experience" of the organism that is relevent.
Cary