Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7628 comp.misc:10699 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!odi!dlw From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: MULTICS and the Jargon File Message-ID: <1990Dec3.214212.15798@odi.com> Date: 3 Dec 90 21:42:12 GMT References: <1YfTW4#8MK9Xf8YJtZH970VXl0fFB3R=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> Reply-To: dlw@odi.com Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Organization: Object Design, Inc. Lines: 39 In-Reply-To: eric@snark.thyrsus.com's message of 3 Dec 90 03:31:43 GMT In article <1YfTW4#8MK9Xf8YJtZH970VXl0fFB3R=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: Hah. Well, now I'm truly damned if I do and damned if I don't. A netter who shall remain nameless wrote: > If you change the opinions about Multics in there, you'll destroy the ENTIRE >history of the jargon file. Hatred of Multics founded ITS long before UNIX. >If you try to make things fair, you'll ruin it. So who'm I supposed to gratify? The pro-MULTICS crowd typified by Rick Smith who believe MULTICS has been unjustly shafted by the derogatory references in jargon-2.1.5, or the anti-MULTICS people who characterize it as a bloated failure, and argue that detestation of it is integral to the tradition I'm trying to preserve? First of all, if you are really troubled about what to do here, I strongly suggest you consult with Guy Steele. He understands the points of view of both contingents, and, in my humble opinion, he is a man of extremely high integrity and fairness, and a fine diplomat, as well as having a great sense of humor. I was at the AI lab when he was compiling the jargon file, and while that jargon was in use. It is certainly true that many of the old-line ITS people had a hostility towards Multics. They also had just as much hostility toward Unix. And many of the people at the AI lab now have only bad things to say about Unix. I don't see why it is necessary to represent the former feelings and not the latter. No matter whether you like Multics or not, I think it's clear that the definition of BRAIN-DAMAGED should be revised from " [generalization of ``Honeywell Brain Damage'' (HBD), a theoretical disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms in MULTICS" to something like" [generalization of ``Honeywell Brain Damage'' (HBD), a theoretical disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms added to MULTICS by Honeywell". The latter obviously makes more sense than the former. Work done at MIT on Multics cannot be sensibly called HBD. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com