Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.college
Subject: Re: Free and undirected campus computing facilities - Not at Waterloo
Message-ID: <468@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 09:13:38 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.468
Posted: Fri Nov 16 09:13:38 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 03:46:36 EST
References: <457@utcsrgv.UUCP> <649@watdcsu.UUCP>, <425@watcgl.UUCP>, <652@watdcsu.UUCP> <9840@watmath.UUCP> <1502@hcrvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 34

> Another involved the Honeywell Computer (I christened it "the 'Bun",
> a name which has stuck for some reason (see earlier news items for
> references)).  This machine's software was so bad that it has been
> almost completely hidden by the handiwork of a generation of hacks.
> 
> The next generation used Unix.
> 
> It is interesting to note that each generation has some contempt
> for the succeeding one, or at least the system they worked with
> ("Real hacks don't ...").

In at least one case, this is simply not true.  Most of the UNIX hacks
started out as Honeywell hacks - I was the first one who started
on UNIX, and never learned the internals of the 'bun.  I suspect that
the Honeywell hacks who never learned UNIX either graduated before it
became available, or were simply more interested in staying with
a system they were familiar with.

As for contempt, that goes both ways in this business it seems -
assembly-language programmers scoff at people who don't know
assembly-language, and people who don't know assembly language scoff at
those who think it's important.  People who like the Honeywell scoff at
UNIX's inability to deal with "real machine" features like tape drive
allocation and archiving, and people who like UNIX scoff at the
Honeywell's half-duplex terminal handling and its inability to call out
and the fact that the time-sharing executive is just a batch job.

You're right that the the "current generation" of hacks uses microcomputers;
but not everyone can afford one, and since the results of that hacking is
not generally made available to a larger community of users, there
probably is not the same sense of purpose in the work done.  I know
that if I had a personal computer, I would not worry as much about making
its software useable by other people than I would if if other people were
going to be the software's principal users.