eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (01/04/91)
This note should be followed by 11 parts containing the 2.3.1 03 JAN 1991 version of the infamous jargon file. To re-assemble it, simply unshar the parts and cat them together. This file will also be available on dorm.rutgers.edu under pub as `jargon.<nnn>', where <nnn> is the digits of the current version number (that is, version 5.6.7 would be `jargon.567'). Future versions up to 2.4.1 (whenever that is) will be posted as context diffs. This version is a draft for "The New Hacker's Dictionary", now expected to come out from MIT Press sometime in summer 1991. This draft is being circulated to the hacker community for criticism and additions. Your comments and new entries are welcomed; mail them to jargon@snark.thyrsus.com or ...!uunet!snark!jargon. Please get your comments and revisions in soon. The freeze deadline for the manuscript is not that far in the future. I can also be reached by USnail at 22 S. Warren Ave., Malvern PA 19355 or by phone at (215)-296-5718. However, I *strongly* prefer submissions, comments and criticism to be communicated via email.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/04/91)
Has anyone tried to put this under the webster server?
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDdavy@intrepid.erg.sri.com (David Curry) (01/05/91)
In article <BZS.91Jan3192010@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: |> |>Has anyone tried to put this under the webster server? Just looking at the file, it would take quite a bit of work. The problem is, although there is a definite format to the jargon file, it's not nearly as rigid as the one used by Webster. Near as I can figure, the following are true: 1. Each entry begins flush left. All lines following the first line of the entry are indented by some amount. There is a blank line between entries. 2. "word" entries have <> around them. "symbol" entries don't. 3. Most entries have pronunciations, some don't. 4. Most entries have parts of speech, some don't, especially some of the homonyms (see ACK, for example). 5. "See also" is just another paragraph in the entries, not a particular format. Thus, the jargon file is too free-format for the existing webster server to deal with. You could do it in one of two ways: 1. Hack the hell out of the webster server to understand the jargon file format. If nothing else, you'd have to do this for the pronunciation part, since the code tries to do clever things to print it out, and the jargon file uses different characters. 2. Hack the hell out of the jargon file to impose the Webster format on it. This actually wouldn't be that bad an idea, since it would certainly make the file more consistent. On the other hand, the format is pretty useless for just plain old persuing the file. It'd probably be easier to just rewrite the webster server from scratch to handle the jargon file in its present format. Dave Curry (Author of the UNIX Webster server.)
sahayman@porbeagle.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) (01/05/91)
>|>Has anyone tried to put this under the webster server? > > 1. Hack the hell out of the webster server to understand the jargon > file format. > 2. Hack the hell out of the jargon file to impose the Webster format > on it. One other possibility is to provide hooks in the webster server to call arbitrary external programs to do 'extra' word lookups. This probably wouldn't be too hard to add, and would be flexible enough to handle other external dictionary files that might come along. i.e. for the jargon file, you write a little "jargon-lookup" filter that knows the format of the jargon file. Then "webster foo" looks up "foo" in the usual way, and also runs "jargon-lookup foo" to consult the jargon file. Of course it's a bit inefficient running an extra process every time you look up every word. Mumble. Maybe the webster daemon only runs "jargon-lookup foo" if you ask it to define the word "jargon: foo". Anyway, I think it would be possible to structure things so that various other databases could be consulted, all within the regular webster framework. Steve "NeXT webster daemon guy" Hayman -- Steve Hayman Workstation Manager Computer Science Department Indiana U. sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (812) 855-6984 NeXT Mail: sahayman@spurge.bloomington.in.us
ronnie@mindcraft.com (Ronnie Kon) (01/05/91)
Given that a significant portion of the unix.internals bandwidth is
now being used by discussions and postings of jargon files, I propose that
we break it off into a new newsgroup, comp.unix.internals.jargon_file. I am
also open to comp.unix.wizards.jargon_file, in view of the upcoming renaming.
Followups to anywhere you like, except, please, unix.internals.
Ronnie Kon
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie B. Kon | "I don't know about your brain, but
kon@groundfog.stanford.edu | mine is really bossy."
...!{decwrl,ames}!mindcrf!ronnie | -- Laurie Andersonharrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (01/11/91)
In article <1633@inews.intel.com>, bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > #pragma project_to_the_back_of_the_theatre > CONSEQUENTLY, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE NEXT TIME ERIC POSTS > ABOUT IT, HE'LL BE KIND ENOUGH SIMPLY TO STATE THAT IT IS > AVAILABLE AND WHERE AND HOW TO GET IT AND NOT POST THE > ENTIRE TEXT WHICH IS SOMETHING OF AN ABOMINABLE PRACTICE > IN THE _FIRST_ PLACE. #pragma me_too NO NO NO, NOT ALL OF US HAVE ACCESS TO FTP!!!! POSTING THE TEXT IS *JUST FINE!* -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...
mitchell (Bill Mitchell) (01/14/91)
In article <612@necssd.NEC.COM> harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) writes: >In article <1633@inews.intel.com>, bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > >> #pragma project_to_the_back_of_the_theatre > >> CONSEQUENTLY, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE NEXT TIME ERIC POSTS >> ABOUT IT, HE'LL BE KIND ENOUGH SIMPLY TO STATE THAT IT IS >> AVAILABLE AND WHERE AND HOW TO GET IT AND NOT POST THE >> ENTIRE TEXT WHICH IS SOMETHING OF AN ABOMINABLE PRACTICE >> IN THE _FIRST_ PLACE. > >#pragma me_too > >NO NO NO, NOT ALL OF US HAVE ACCESS TO FTP!!!! POSTING THE TEXT IS >*JUST FINE!* >-- Let me add a qualified ME_TOO to this. I too lack FTP access. Because of this, I appreciate having the entire text posted where I can get at it. However, I'm not a contributor, and I do not need a copy of the complete jargon file at every revision. Perhaps there is a workable compromise solution?? If there is no workable compromise, I'd rather see the entire file posted with each revision than not see anything. -- mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)
dlow@pollux.HP.COM (Danny Low) (01/15/91)
>Let me add a qualified ME_TOO to this. I too lack FTP access. Because >of this, I appreciate having the entire text posted where I can get at >it. Another ME_TOO. I'm on a close network and cannot ftp from a non-HP system. This is the first time I've been able to get a copy of the jargon file. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP CPCD dlow@pollux.svale.hp.com
libove@libove.det.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) (01/16/91)
Funny, I seem to be seeing this all over the place... There are FTP-by-mail services offered in a number of places, one of which is bitftp@pucc.bitnet (ala bitftp%pucc.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu for other mailers that understand arpa routing, and ...!psuvm!pucc.bitnet!bitftp for simple UUCP routings), which allow ANYONE who can send mail (and that presumably includes anyone who can read/send news) to FTP files, WITHOUT flooding the whole @#$%#$ world with gigantic postings. I think that you can get help from the Princeton bitftp server by mailing to one of the above addresses with no subject and the word "help" alone by itself in the message. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@libove.det.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove Detroit ACT/Ultrix Resource Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Farmington Hills, Michigan and D.E.C. Can't have 'em!