Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7629 comp.misc:10700
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc
Subject: Re: MULTICS and the Jargon File
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.222238.1159@Think.COM>
Date: 3 Dec 90 22:22:38 GMT
References: <1YfTW4#8MK9Xf8YJtZH970VXl0fFB3R=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> <1990Dec3.214212.15798@odi.com>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 22

In article <1990Dec3.214212.15798@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
>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.

By the way, those of us who do like Multics also used the term "HBD".  In
our case, though, it frequently referred to the disease that explained why
Honeywell management refused to support Multics and why the sales
organization was unable to market it.

--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com