Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7768 comp.misc:10791 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bbn.com!cosell From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: Jargon File Editorial Philosophy Message-ID: <61399@bbn.BBN.COM> Date: 6 Dec 90 17:37:50 GMT References: <1Yh2D8#44K9D41f8QQk5qw1fx64Q7TX=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> Sender: news@bbn.com Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 76 mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: }In article <1Yh2D8#44K9D41f8QQk5qw1fx64Q7TX=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: }>ISSUE #1: THE PAST VS. THE PRESENT }>I think it would betray the hacker spirit to shackle the Jargon File to its }>past. I want today's budding hackers to be able to dive into it and learn }>about the culture as it exists *today*. I want to set a precedent for some }>bright-eyed youngster around the year 2000 to be able to honorably retire }>some of the slang *I* added from his/her version 3 for the excellent reason }>that it's no longer `live'. }"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." }If possible, I would like to bring in slang and folklore from the }1960's, NOT delete it or relegate it to an appendix (for later }deletion). }The world is ill-served by censoring stuff that some Winston Smith }thinks can be "retired." I think we are doomed to disagree here. I think that if what you want is folklore and history, you should be using some OTHER vehicle that a dictionary of current usage. Talking about 'Winston Smith' is just disingenuous, just like the folks who call any editor who blue-pencils something they care about a 'censor'. Fact is that jargon and slang CHANGE over time [and especially so in our little pond, where the underlying tehcnology has changed so much, so fast]. The water is muddy enough, and complicated enough, without FURTHER polluting it with 'archaisms'. }After all, EMACS came from the world which you seem to be so eager to }bury and forget. It is significant that it came from that world and }not from the Unix world. It is NOT significant at all. I know quite a lot about the birth and genesis of EMACS [and the development of the TECOs that came before it and upon which the first EMACSs were built]. Matters of TECO, *at*all*, and (heavens!) ^R real-time-mode and the like are about as hopelessly irrelevant to the GNU EMACS and its modern brethren as bringing in discussions of buggy whips as being an early form of 'accelerator pedal'. If you want *history*, that's fine: and go to the right places. I don't think that the jargon file is such a 'right place'. }>ISSUE #3: INCLUDE MORE FOLKLORE? }>What do I do about this kind of material? Include it in appendices? }*This* is the stuff that belongs in appendices, not lexical entries. right, and things like the history of emacs, the definition of 'ITS', that the 'T' in TECO stands for (paper) tape and such is *folklore*. }>ISSUE #4: PROPER-NAME ENTRIES }> }>Some jargon-file entries refer to the user or full names of hackers who are }>now or were at some time famous. }Once again, deletion of history ill-serves the future. A lot of }valuable 1950's and 1960's hacker history has been *lost* forever }because of attitudes such as yours. Foo again. The place for history is in history books. If you want the names of the early hackers, go read Steve Levy's "Hackers". I see no need to carry that among the lexical entries. You're right that history should not be lost, but you're blaming the wrong party for its omission. And what do you mean by the vaguely pejorative about 'attitudes such as yours'? It sounds like you've lost sight of what function dictionaries are supposed to perform. If *you* want to write a history of something feel free. Just as Levy's book was, I suspect it would be a worthwhile activity and good reading. Just don't expect a compiler of a dictionary to be your historian. /Bernie\ Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com