Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7950 comp.misc:10907
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Jargon File Editorial Philosophy
Message-ID: <73343246@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 14 Dec 90 05:35:51 GMT
References: <1Yh2D8#44K9D41f8QQk5qw1fx64Q7TX=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Dec14.003642.25911@Solbourne.COM>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers
Lines: 8

I think that a Jargon file which remembers the past is a stronger Jargon
file!

If you're going to make the argument that the Jargon File needs to be
up-to-date, then how about making an effort to see that it really is!
What jargon are people using out there TODAY?  There's nothing very
appealing in maintaining a sort of rolling window of obsolescence where
nothing's newer than two or three years or older than ten.