Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:8037 comp.misc:10960 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!snark!eric From: eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: the jargon file Message-ID: <1YqWpR#1YnZJF2ktJM020ODXT8YVbVG=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> Date: 18 Dec 90 17:30:13 GMT References: Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 76 Back-References: <13187@milton.u.washington.edu> In Christopher C. Stacy wrote: > Eric S. Raymond asserts that "all the ITS > partisans have now become Unix partisans, since the Unix philosophy is > the same as the ITS philosophy", and discusses his new edition > of our old jargon file. I never claimed that the UNIX philosophy is "the same" as ITS's. > In fact, most of the "ITS partisans" are really unhappy, discouraged, and > severely disapproving of this effort to re-write the jargon file. I've received critical email from two ex-ITS people. I've also received entries, help, and encouragement from at least six others. Not to mention five of the six First Edition authors. The sixth, mrc, is unhappy about some editing decisions I've made but hasn't questioned that the job needs doing. On the evidence available to me, you speak for a minority which includes none of the principal authors of the file. > Also, we are definitely not "Unix partisans". I have been corrected on this in email. I naively thought that because MIT had gone with UNIX and most of the ex-ITSers I know are hacking UNIX these days the ex-ITS crowd could be fairly said to `prefer' UNIX. As it turns out, a lot of ex-ITSers would rather worship the ghosts of departed operating systems and bitch about UNIX rather than implement something they like. I think this is very sad. > It's unfortunate that one of the side-effects of not taking steps to protect > this material is that people can steal it and use it misrepresent us, but > who would have guessed? I am doing my very damnedest not to misrepresent anybody; the First Edition authors (with whom I regularly discuss my editorial choices) can testify to this. Any ITSer who thinks he's being `misrepresented' by anything in the file is welcome to submit *specific changes* to correct the errors. Bellyaching at me about `philosophy' doesn't help any party unless you're willing to get specific about what you don't like. I am not an autocratic editor, as any number of people who've sent me changes can testify. I'll either merge in the change or explain why I didn't. If after that you still disagree, I'm willing to debate matters in the open. As for `stealing', this is unfair and insulting. You don't own JARGON.TXT and I don't claim to. If anyone has proprietary rights on any of this material it's Guy Steele via the 1983 paper addition, and he emailed the ms of that book to *me* to use as I saw fit. > Eric Raymond probably isn't doing this out of > malice; I'm sure he just doesn't understand what the jargon file was really > all about. I'm sure I don't understand *your* theory of what it was all about. Your implied claim to authority on the subject is shaky at best. > The rest of us are a little baffled at Guy Steele's cooperation > with him. Why don't you *ask* him, then? Here's a clue, closed-captioned for the thinking-impaired: Maybe Guy Steele and I agree that the ITS culture had something valuable to transmit to latter-day hackerdom. Maybe we agree that it's worthwhile that that tradition not be lost, that it add its own flavor to the UNIX-dominated hackerdom of today. Maybe I still believe that. Maybe I'm beginning to doubt it now... Followups to alt.folklore.computers ONLY. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)