eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/06/90)
There's been a good bit of criticism of my editorial decisions in re the
new Jargon File lately. I want to make clear to all parties that (despite
my mildly aggrieved-sounding posting about the MULTICS/anti-MULTICS crossfire)
I welcome this debate and would like to encourage more of it.
I am really trying in this project to act as an instrument of the hacker
community at large; I consider that my job is not to create but to distill.
As such, the feedback I get on alt.folklore.computers and via email is very
important to me and *does* shape my decisions and policies. If this has not
already been obvious, I hope it will become so in the next release.
I write this to share with all of you some of the global issues that I think
recent discussions of specifics have been pointing at, and to make known
my thinking on them. Reply, commentary, support, criticism, persuasion, and
(yes) flames are invited in reply (on issues like these, even the fools and
flamers have a story to tell...:-)).
<OPEN ISSUES BEGIN HERE>
ISSUE #1: THE PAST VS. THE PRESENT
The overriding problem that keeps re-manifesting in different guises is the
tension between the Jargon File as a window into current usage and attitudes
and the Jargon File as a record of `old-time' hacker tradition.
The world has changed a lot since 1983, the date of the last major revision.
Hackerdom has changed with it. The PDP-10 and ITS and the ARPANET are dead.
TECO is a historical relic. The relatively narrow MIT/Stanford/CMU/RPI base
of the old hacker culture has broadened out to include the UNIX community
it once looked down on, and has gone international as well (three days ago
I got a note from Vadim Antonov in Moscow that casually mentioned how
Russian hacker slang had been much influenced by the old jargon file after
1985!).
I've spent a lot of thought and effort on how to deal with this. I've decided
that I have to come down on the side of current usage, even though that means
doing things that annoy other old-timers like moving the dead PDP-10 slang to
an appendix so it won't clutter up the main body. For those who want a
historical document, jargon-1 is out there.
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'.
I've tried to be respectful of history, though. I couldn't bring myself to
simply drop *anything* from jargon.1; it would have seemed like sacrilege.
That's why there *is* now an appendix B. Also, I haven't been fanatical
about excising the old ITS-based examples and some of the MIT-o-centric
assumptions. Wherever these seemed to yield additional `flavor' I've left
them in.
And, in many entries, I've tried to give some indication of how hacker
attitudes have evolved over time. Thus (for example) the DESERVE TO LOSE
example now trashes MS-DOS, with a note that ITS fans used to say this
of UNIX (it would have been unsporting to point out that those old ITSers are
now mostly UNIX partisans themselves, and I didn't).
In sum, it seems to me better to have an appendix for `dead' slang than to
nuke it altogether or to compromise what I see as the primary mission of
describing `live' hacker culture. Now, I'm certainly willing to listen to
arguments about what should or should not be considered dead. General policy
on this is the same as for new entries; I prefer to have two independent
reports of `live' usage but will settle for one plus my own experience.
ISSUE #2: LEXICON OR ENCYCLOPEDIA?
Another (and subtler) problem is organizational. Should the File be strictly
a lexicon, or more in the nature of an encyclopedia? Right now, material
on the culture that doesn't fit the lexicon format is divided between entries
like ORIENTAL FOOD, MUSIC, and HACKER HUMOR (on the one hand) and appendices
(on the other). There's also more `encyclopedic' stuff I'm intending to merge
in, like a revised and expanded version of the `Portrait of J. Random Hacker'
I posted here a while back.
So this problem is going to become more acute. On the one hand, there's a
certain esthetic and historical appeal to sticking close to a pure lexicon
style; on the other hand, this means proliferating appendices like crazy if
I want to include even the breadth of stuff that's already in, and that's
klugey. And this leads straight to...
ISSUE #3: INCLUDE MORE FOLKLORE?
There's lots of stuff out there (like the ThingKing spoof, the story of
Mel the Real Programmer, the DEC WARS/UNIX WARS postings, etc. etc.) that
would offer humorous insights into hacker culture. Stuff that's hard to
find. Guy Steele even wants to include the entire INTERCAL manual!
What do I do about this kind of material? Include it in appendices? (That
might cause the already-large on-line version of the jargon file to bloat
unnacceptably). Include it in the paper version only and run a folklore mail
server on snark? Forget it because it opens up too big a can of worms?
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. I have a couple problems with this. One is
that the email addresses they site may be obsolescent; neither I nor the
reader has any way to know, and is it appropriate to publish dangling pointers?
Another problem is that these people were bigger frogs in smaller ponds than
the File is now aimed at -- of major stature within, say, MIT, but not really
well known outside it.
So I want to remove such entries. The type case is the personal names listed
under QUUX. Is it really of continuing interest that some gentleman named
Alan P. Swide was once known as `The Mediocre QUUX'?
The `Dave Lebling' entry under PDL makes another troubling example. I mean,
this guy helped write ZORK; he probably qualifies as at least culture-hero,
if not actual DEMIGOD. But is it really interesting or useful in the Jargon
File's new context to be reminded that he was once known as pdl?
However, I also do not want to be seen seen as arbitrarily cutting people off
from whatever share of notoriety they justly earned. Am I going to be flamed
if I drop these entries? More importantly, am I going to *deserve* to be
flamed?
This question has a sharper bite for me than it might because I'd already
had more influence on the culture than most even before I started editing
the file. I am the author of the fairly infamous UNIX WARS spoof, the
originator of the term `BONDAGE & DISCIPLINE LANGUAGE', the implementor of
C-INTERCAL, one of the senior nethack developers, and designer of a popular
netnews suite (among many other things); it's difficult for me to avoid having
a presence in the jargon file and a personal connection to a lot of entries.
The *last* thing I want to do (or be thought to be doing) is crowd anybody else
out of the limelight.
What do all of you on the net think I should do about this?
<END OF OPEN ISSUES>
Finally, I want to again thank everybody who has contributed to the file and to
the debate over its purposes, form and contents. I sincerely hope you will
all continue to do so even if my editorial decisions don't sit perfectly
with you. I'd like to please everybody, but that's not possible and wouldn't
reflect good judgement if it were. I do want continuing support and correction
from as wide a range of hacker-culture sources as I can get, so that the Jargon
File will present as true and inspiring and humorous a portrait of hackerdom
as it possibly can.
--
Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (12/06/90)
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." 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. >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. >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. >However, I also do not want to be seen seen as arbitrarily cutting people off >from whatever share of notoriety they justly earned. Am I going to be flamed >if I drop these entries? More importantly, am I going to *deserve* to be >flamed? Yes, and yes. >This question has a sharper bite for me than it might because I'd already >had more influence on the culture than most even before I started editing >the file. It all depends upon what area of the "culture" you are talking about. I've been famous on the net for 15 years, although not as much in the Unix world. I prefer not to brag about my past accomplishments though. Personally, I've never heard of some of the entries you added; nor has anyone else I've talked to. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be in there; but it does indicate that you should not be taking such a superior tone. _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" _|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?" |_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin." --|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin." /|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin." / | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!" Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.
bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) (12/06/90)
In article <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: [about keeping the old entries in the jargon file] Well, isn't the solution to save the original jargon file (indefinitely), and create a wholly new one? I mean that Eric's jargon file should be explicitly defined to contain "current" hacker slang (as of now, 1990). And then both jargon files could be available via ftp (preferrably from the same site(s)). I agree with Mark Crispin that we should preserve the original idioms _somewhere_. What was the name of the original jargon file (or should we call it "jargon.classic")?. The new one could be called "jargon.1990" (or maybe "jargon.1990.raymond"). And then we could have regular issues every 10 years :-) -- Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden Internet: bengtl@maths.lth.se SUNET: TYCHE::BENGT_L
msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) (12/07/90)
I favor keeping stuff that is no longer in common use, but separating it from the current stuff. Maybe not calling it an ``appendix'', but ``section 2'', or something to that effect. I also like the idea of including longer documents that Offer Insight into Hacker Culture. Perhaps this should be organized as several sections, current jargon, non-current jargon, and long examples. This would tend to become fairly long, but I think that is ok. Heck, floppy disks hold over a megabyte these days. -- Michael Pereckas * InterNet: m-pereckas@uiuc.edu * just another student... (CI$: 72311,3246) Jargon Dept.: Decoupled Architecture---sounds like the aftermath of a tornado
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/07/90)
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\
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/07/90)
I think it's terrific that you are revising the Jargon file, which is very much out-of-date. I suggest that rather than making your new Jargon file appear to be a revised version of it, you give it an entirely new name, so it's clear that is an entirely new work (which it should be). Then generously acknowledge within the new work its dependence on the old one. That way we don't, accidentally or deliberately, put the old one in a negative light or imply that it is any less relevant today than it was once, but simply acknowledge that these are different times. The old one is an important piece of history that has its own place in the world. History never becomes obsolete. By the way, please stop assuming that there's anything called UNIX any more. There are lots of OSs derived from UNIX. They all have their own names, e.g. System V, Xenix, BSD, Ultrix, ESIX, Mach, and probably others. None of them is really UNIX, and none of them should be called UNIX. It would be a good idea to make this clear in the Jargon file, and then religiously use the correct name rather than an imprecise and term. (And as the AT&T will happily tell you until you're sick of hearing it, there is no *thing* called UNIX as AT&T uses the term, because UNIX as a trade mark is an adjective, not a noun. The *thing* called UNIX ran on PDP-11s and is not in use any more.) -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
Nathan.Torkington@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Nathan Torkington) (12/07/90)
In article <1Yh2D8#44K9D41f8QQk5qw1fx64Q7TX=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>, eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: |> ISSUE #1: THE PAST VS. THE PRESENT Thorny problem. There's no doubt (as some of the more virulent posters have said) that the past deserves to be preserved. Some day in the future, these things are going to be a vital part of history. The only question is whether we can say "It's Eric S. Raymond's job to keep the history". The bummer is that the history is always being made. If you keep the Jargon file up-to-date, all the stuff you throw away should be kept for the 'history file'. But that means administrating *two* files, which is still more work for you. You'll have to decide someday whether or not you wish to do this. |> For those who want a |> historical document, jargon-1 is out there. But more 'history' is still being uncovered. All this drivel recently about Grace Hopper ought to be distilled. All the entries are capable of revision as 'new' facts come to light. That's work for you, of course ... :) |> I've tried to be respectful of history, though. I couldn't bring myself to |> simply drop *anything* from jargon.1; it would have seemed like sacrilege. |> That's why there *is* now an appendix B. Stuff which is removed from Jargon file could go into History/Retired file. Jargon entries could contain pointers to the Retired file, and vice-versa. |> ISSUE #2: LEXICON OR ENCYCLOPEDIA? The trouble is that the two are intertwined. A lot of work would be required to extract the folklore/history from the strict denotations. But if it was to be done, there would be then a Lexicon *and* an encyclopedia, which could be considered both a sod to maintain but a brilliant reference work. |> There's also more `encyclopedic' stuff I'm intending to merge in, like a |> revised and expanded version of the `Portrait of J. Random Hacker' |> I posted here a while back. This stuff would go into the Encyclopedia/Folklore/Whatever-the-heck file. Stuff like Mel, Real Programmers ..., NetLegends, etc etc etc could go here. |> ISSUE #3: INCLUDE MORE FOLKLORE? Depends on whether or not you want to become a folklore historian .... I personally think it's a really cool idea, but certainly wouldn't want to administrate the thing! :) |> ISSUE #4: PROPER-NAME ENTRIES Heroes Of Hackerdom biographies. The entries for pdl (yes, keep it!) get put here. If people want a proper-name they go here for it. Then you could afford to keep all the interesting people (Richard Stallman, Lebling, Levy, etc) who deserve places in history ... |> the Jargon |> File will present as true and inspiring and humorous a portrait of hackerdom |> as it possibly can. I think it's a valuable asset to the world. In times to come, this area of culture, etc, will be of great interest. People like us will affect the world for better or worse ... we may as well have a record of it. As someone said, "History forgotten is doomed to be repeated." *All* history is valuable, especially stuff like the history of DEC-stuff posted a month or two ago ... that'll keep the hackers of the future intrigued for sure. Let's not forget that there isn't an area of human interest which doesn't have valuable lessons to be learned from it's founders; music has the classical period, literature has the renaissance, even the banjo has a history for God's sake! Let's not let the history die, but let's not force it on people, either. I advocate the splitting of the Jargon file into (a) Lexicon (b) Folklore/Fact Encyclopedia (c) Biographies with mayhaps more sections being added as needed. Although I wouldn't want to do it, of course! :) Keep up the good work, Eric ... -Nat. -- [ Death@comp.vuw.ac.nz aka Blackadder@st1.vuw.ac.nz aka Nathan Torkington ] [ "Graeme Lee ... a condom on the penis of progress" - Bob Jones ] [ This is not an official communication of Victoria University, Wellington. ]
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec6.091013.26270@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes: >Well, isn't the solution to save the original jargon file (indefinitely), >and create a wholly new one? I mean that Eric's jargon file should be >explicitly defined to contain "current" hacker slang (as of now, 1990). The problem is, there is a lot of slang in the "current" jargon file that could be considered obsolete, just that Eric doesn't know that the term has become obsolete. A lexicon should have *all* the terms, past and present; as old terms may be revived or acquire new meanings. I personally use a lot of the so-called "obsolete" terms. They are not obsolete to *me*! BIN, BIN FILE, EXCH, JFCL, JSYS, MOBY (!!!), SUPDUP (a protocol still in active use), and TECO. _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" _|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?" |_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin." --|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin." /|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin." / | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!" Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/07/90)
In article <2776@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > By the way, please stop assuming that there's anything called UNIX any > more. There are lots of OSs derived from UNIX. They all have their > own names, e.g. System V, Xenix, BSD, Ultrix, ESIX, Mach, and probably > others. None of them is really UNIX, and none of them should be called > UNIX. I disagree. They should all be called UNIX, as should MINIX, Coherent, and anything else that supplies the important system calls in section 2 of the seventh edition manual (the seventh edition because that was the last time there was a single official UNIX outside AT&T). UNIX is not an operating system. It is a family of operating systems that share a common programmer interface. And AT&T can verb it for all I care. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/08/90)
In <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin wrote: > "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." Isn't this a bit...excessive, Mark? I am not proposing to `forget' the ITS/PDP-10 world. Far from it; didn't you read my comment re `sacrilege'? The idea that `Appendix B' is marked for deletion was someone else's, not mine, and I don't agree with it. I'm all for preserving the historical material *as historical material*; the issue before us is not content, but organization. Please try to cool down a bit. Your opinions on this are important to me; that's why you're one of the few to have been mailed the advance 2.1.7 version. Your comments on 2.1.1 were very valuable and I incorporated nearly all of them. Just say the word and I'll ship you a copy of my entire jargon project archives, including my USENET-submissions mailbox containing attestations for most of those terms you've never seen. By descending to the level of an ad-hominem attack on me (which you've done in this and at least one other posting on this thread) you only damage your own prospects of getting the policy changes you want. You have a lot of prestige with me and (I hope) with other members of this group. Don't blow it on non-issues, man! -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/08/90)
In <1990Dec6.091013.26270@lth.se> Bengt Larsson wrote: > I agree with Mark Crispin that we should preserve the original idioms > _somewhere_. So do I. They're right there in Appendix B. > And then we could have regular issues every 10 years :-) I hope this happens! I really do! -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/08/90)
In <12475@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin wrote: > The problem is, there is a lot of slang in the "current" jargon file > that could be considered obsolete, just that Eric doesn't know that > the term has become obsolete. That's certainly possible. Care to list some terms? I'll move them to Appendix B. > A lexicon should have *all* the terms, past and present; as old terms > may be revived or acquire new meanings. I agree. That's why Appendix B exists. > I personally use a lot of the so-called "obsolete" terms. They are > not obsolete to *me*! BIN, BIN FILE, EXCH, JFCL, JSYS, MOBY (!!!), > SUPDUP (a protocol still in active use), and TECO. There is now a TECO entry in main text which points to a TECO entry in Appendix B. (and note that this is Guy Steele's full entry, not just the jargon-1 text). I will move SUPDUP to main text also. EXCH and MOBY are already there; MOBY, like TECO, has two entries, one in main text and one in Appendix B. Say -- this gives me a great idea! How's about if I designate main text `low moby' and Appendix B `high moby'. Then we could talk about the `low moby MOBY' amd the `high moby MOBY'. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/08/90)
In <2776@cirrusl.UUCP> Rahul Dhesi wrote: > I think it's terrific that you are revising the Jargon file, which is > very much out-of-date. I suggest that rather than making your new > Jargon file appear to be a revised version of it, you give it an > entirely new name, so it's clear that is an entirely new work (which it > should be). Then generously acknowledge within the new work its > dependence on the old one. I believe it's important that the `new' jargon file be seen as continuous with the old one. It is *not* an entirely new work; among other things, it contains essentially the entirety of jargon-1. > By the way, please stop assuming that there's anything called UNIX any > more. I disagree completely. 80% of my UNIX-expert toolbox is transferable between any two dialects of UNIX you care to name. Just as importantly, UNIX still has a relatively unified technical culture -- everybody knows what you mean when you say ``Under UNIX, you do it this way...''. Followups on this subject to alt.religion.computers, please. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (12/08/90)
If you are trying to create a dictionary of something, why not look
at what professional dictionary editors do? Put all entries into one
alphabetical list and mark some of them (in parentheses) as obsolete.
For instance:
foo: (noun, obsolete) a small furry animal which lives in computer ventilation
slots.
This would allow a wide variety of anotations, including ethymology.
The only stuff that should go into appendices is stuff that doesn't
naturally fit into the main dictionary's simple alphabetic listing.
Marc R. Roussel
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.caslamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) (12/08/90)
In article <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >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). I tend to agree with Mark on this point, although probably not as vociferously :-). I suggest that all jargon should be in the main body of the file. After all, if you pick up your copy of the OED and look up "bodkin," for instance, it will be there, although it isn't really in common use (now someone will flame me for depricating the word "bodkin," no doubt. (-:). It may say *obs.* after the definition (I don't know whether this particular example is correct or not, since I don't have an OED at hand), but it is there. I think this is a reasonable compromise, surely better than bifurcating the dictionary into two separate sections, one for "obsolete" words and one for current usage. This discussion is rapidly diverging from the subject of computer folklore. Maybe we need alt.folklore.computers.d??? Again, I wish to compliment Eric on his efforts. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his editorial judgements, one has to admire the dedication to our art that he has shown in continuing this compilation. spl (the p stands for philosophy? I don't have to show you no steenking philosophy) -- Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- 1882p@cc.nps.navy.mil -- a guest on network.ucsd.edu NPS Confuser Center / Code 51 / Naval Postgraduate School / Monterey, CA 93943 What is truth and what is fable, where is Ruth and where is Mabel? - Director/producer John Amiel, heard on NPR
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) (12/08/90)
In article <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> 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." [fx: indignant huffing] :-) 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. >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. >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. All your fault, Eric, for being so thoughtless as to take on a thankless job that involves, (dare I say it?) ... _editing_ If you're concerned about history being lost, why not coordinate a netwide history file? Flaming Eric won't do you any good. Folks, this is the `jargon' file, not the arcana file. I too want to see the history, the stories, and the old terms preserved. However, they should only be used in the main body of the dictionary if they provide context that is necessary to understanding a particular entry. Certainly, a dictionary should have etymologies. But to say that a collection of jargon - current technical slang - should contain things that have died off defeats the purpose of the file. [discussion about famous people being removed, eric wonders [if he should invest in asbestos. Marc says yes >This question has a sharper bite for me than it might because I'd already >had more influence on the culture than most even before I started editing >the file. It all depends upon what area of the "culture" you are talking about. I've been famous on the net for 15 years, although not as much in the Unix world. I prefer not to brag about my past accomplishments though. Uh huh. Let's see what mrc has to say in ``the Hacker's Dictionary'': [basic personal bio] ``My BMW 320i's license plate is...'' ^^^ ^^^^ Nope, no bragging there :-) Personally, I've never heard of some of the entries you added; nor has anyone else I've talked to. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be in there; but it does indicate that you should not be taking such a superior tone. [fx: huffing loud enough to qualify as obscene.] _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" --Pat
tanner@ki4pv.compu.com (Dr. T. Andrews) (12/08/90)
) And then both jargon files could be available via ftp (preferrably
) from the same site(s)).
It would be especially nice if they were available not only
pre-formatted, but as nroff/troff input so that they could be
more readily printed on the ``nicer'' printers by those who
wish.
) And then we could have regular issues every 10 years :-)
And would you believe that some folks are still using C/A/T troff?
How many people have ever actually seen a C/A/T typesetter, or any
``real'' phototypesetter?
--
...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannerpb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger) (12/09/90)
Eric When you publish the next version of the Jargon file, could you also post a diff version, so that those of us who maintain the file locally can just patch it? Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Berger || ARPA: peterb@cs.cmu.edu Professional Student || Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law || BITNET: R746PB1P@CMCCVB Attend this school, not CMU || UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Goldilocks is about property rights. Little Red Riding Hood is a tale of seduction, rape, murder, and cannibalism." -Bernard J. Hibbits ------------------------------------------------------------------------
ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (12/09/90)
In article <61399@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > > [ ... ] the definition of 'ITS', >that the 'T' in TECO stands for (paper) tape and such is *folklore*. A lexicographer might disagree with you. These things should be placed in the section on the etymology of their respective headwords. -- Anders Thulin ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcsun}!sunic!prosys!ath Telesoft Europe AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/10/90)
In <IbMFz5600V86427XJE@andrew.cmu.edu> Peter Glen Berger wrote: > When you publish the next version of the Jargon file, could you also > post a diff version, so that those of us who maintain the file locally > can just patch it? So far there has seemed little point, because it's been changing so rapidly that the diffs might have outbulked a straight send. I may start doing this *after* the next version, though! -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/11/90)
In <1Yj7hX#2l3Vc22kQ5w7992j5r42BCZr=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes (on defining UNIX): >I disagree completely. 80% of my UNIX-expert toolbox is transferable between >any two dialects of UNIX you care to name. Just as importantly, UNIX still >has a relatively unified technical culture... Unfortunately, there's Minix, Coherent, and a few other look-alikes that are not derived from the original AT&T code, and 80% of your UNIX-expert toolbox is probably transferable to them too. So the implied definition of UNIX must either apply to them, so they too should be called UNIX, or the definition should be changed so it applies only to an OS derived from the original UNIX code. Furthermore, 80% of your toolbox may well be transferable to some MS-DOS environments which implement many of the UNIX system calls, and it will almost certainly be transferable to many implementations of POSIX in the near future, including (>GAK<) VMS. Not a good way to define UNIX. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
imp@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) (12/14/90)
In article <12418@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >Personally, I've never heard of some of the entries you added; nor has >anyone else I've talked to. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be >in there; but it does indicate that you should not be taking such a >superior tone. I have been hacking for over 15 years now (not much in comparison to Mark), and I haven't heard of half of the new things added to jargon file. And I'm a dweeb! Please, if you are going to reinvent jargon for a whole industry, please don't get offended when people just refuse to change...... Warner -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM We sing about Beauty and we sing about Truth at $10,000 a show.
imp@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) (12/14/90)
In article <12475@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >I personally use a lot of the so-called "obsolete" terms. They are >not obsolete to *me*! BIN, BIN FILE, EXCH, JFCL, JSYS, MOBY (!!!), >SUPDUP (a protocol still in active use), and TECO. Gee, I guess I can't use "MOBY BOGUS" to describe really bad things any more. :-) Warner -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM We sing about Beauty and we sing about Truth at $10,000 a show.
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (12/14/90)
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.
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/16/90)
In <1990Dec14.003837.26014@Solbourne.COM> Warner Losh wrote: > In article <12475@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: > >I personally use a lot of the so-called "obsolete" terms. They are > >not obsolete to *me*! BIN, BIN FILE, EXCH, JFCL, JSYS, MOBY (!!!), > >SUPDUP (a protocol still in active use), and TECO. > > Gee, I guess I can't use "MOBY BOGUS" to describe really bad things > any more. :-) Mark was a little confused. MOBY has *not* been removed frm main text. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/16/90)
In <1990Dec14.003642.25911@Solbourne.COM> Warner Losh wrote: > I have been hacking for over 15 years now (not much in comparison to > Mark), and I haven't heard of half of the new things added to jargon > file. And I'm a dweeb! Please, if you are going to reinvent jargon > for a whole industry, please don't get offended when people just > refuse to change...... I will, on request, send my entire archive of saved submission postings to anyone who thinks I'm making this stuff up. Warning: it's about 1.5 megabytes long. Wake up and smell the coffee, guys. The hacker culture isn't just a couple tiny bands of cybernerds at a handful of big universities any more. Sure, that's where you come from and where I come from -- but we are long past the days when any one person could expect to know all the jargon. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) (12/16/90)
In article <1Yh2D8#44K9D41f8QQk5qw1fx64Q7TX=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >ISSUE #1: THE PAST VS. THE PRESENT I strongly feel that all of the vocabulary should be kept in the main section, with some notation (maybe a bit less galling to those who still use it than "obsolete" - "historical" perhaps) to indicate it's out of currency. But keep it there, including pdl, definition 2. pdl itself is mostly (cover thyself) obsoleted by "stack", but it's useful to know. But I really don't think things should be deleted. Think like the OED. >ISSUE #2: LEXICON OR ENCYCLOPEDIA? I suggest moving the background material to an appendix or somehow out of the lexicon. (Electronically, the appendices should just be separate files for anonymous ftp or posting or whatever.) It's already sort of scattered, with a fair amount in the introduction, and perhaps a good way to organize things would be to have the introduction be a brief summary of the apropriate appendi(x|ces). (Note to regexp entry: the syntax comes in very handy in real life, although the choice of . as the wildcard character is annoying when applying it to filenames and larger chunks of english text.) (If I were to organize the ftp archive, I'd have the jargon file start with AOS or wherever it does and split out all the less structured material, including the introduction to separate files. The lexicon itself evolves fastest, I believe, and commentators don't really need to read the introduction n times. Making a single all-inclusive file which tracks the segmented version is what make is for, if you feel the need.) >Another (and subtler) problem is organizational. Should the File be strictly >a lexicon, or more in the nature of an encyclopedia? Right now, material >on the culture that doesn't fit the lexicon format is divided between entries >like ORIENTAL FOOD, MUSIC, and HACKER HUMOR (on the one hand) and appendices >(on the other). There's also more `encyclopedic' stuff I'm intending to merge >in, like a revised and expanded version of the `Portrait of J. Random Hacker' >I posted here a while back. > >So this problem is going to become more acute. On the one hand, there's a >certain esthetic and historical appeal to sticking close to a pure lexicon >style; on the other hand, this means proliferating appendices like crazy if >I want to include even the breadth of stuff that's already in, and that's >klugey. And this leads straight to... > >ISSUE #3: INCLUDE MORE FOLKLORE? > >There's lots of stuff out there (like the ThingKing spoof, the story of >Mel the Real Programmer, the DEC WARS/UNIX WARS postings, etc. etc.) that >would offer humorous insights into hacker culture. Stuff that's hard to >find. Guy Steele even wants to include the entire INTERCAL manual! Yes, the Intercal manual is a useful historical document... It's basically a question of, do you want to take this on? It's not strictly jargon file, but a paper publisher would still be interested, as would the hacker community. You could include it as part of the extended jargon file, or you could decide it's too much work. Editor's call. >What do I do about this kind of material? Include it in appendices? (That >might cause the already-large on-line version of the jargon file to bloat >unnacceptably). Include it in the paper version only and run a folklore mail >server on snark? Forget it because it opens up too big a can of worms? >ISSUE #4: PROPER-NAME ENTRIES I won't flame you either way, but the general question is whether nicknames for proper nouns are fair game, or is there some reason for distinguishing Marginal Hacks Hall from The Mediocre QUUX. >What do all of you on the net think I should do about this? H'm... you do, however, raise the point that the collection of nicknames is very limited and uniformity argues it should be broadened or eliminated. I don't know. By the way, I just heard the following term today, and have a draft definition: GANG BANG: the use of large numbers of loosely-coupled programmers in an attempt to produce a great deal of functionality in a short time. While there have been memorable gang bangs (ref: that over-the-weekend assembler port mentioned in Hackers), most are perpetrated by large companies trying to meet deadlines and produce enormous buggy code entirely lacking in orthogonality. When market-driven managers make a list of all the features the competition have and assign one programmer to implement each, they seem to fail to notice the feature of maintaining strong invariants, like relational integrity. Thinking of which, are epithets like the following to be relegated to Programming Pearls? "A design is complete not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to take away." -- -Colin
oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (12/20/90)
In article <1YnmNF#8DB29g91rklP72YnCb7q33fS=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >I will, on request, send my entire archive of saved submission postings >to anyone who thinks I'm making this stuff up. Warning: it's about 1.5 >megabytes long. What about VAXOCENTRICISM ??? Where did that come from? Talk about force feeding jargon. oz --- Good design means less design. Design | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca must serve users, not try to fool them. | UUCP: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz -- Dieter Rams, Chief Designer, Braun. | phonet: 1+ 416 736 5257
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/21/90)
In <19234@yunexus.YorkU.CA> Ozan Yigit wrote: > In article <1YnmNF#8DB29g91rklP72YnCb7q33fS=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> > eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > > >I will, on request, send my entire archive of saved submission postings > >to anyone who thinks I'm making this stuff up. Warning: it's about 1.5 > >megabytes long. > > What about VAXOCENTRICISM ??? Where did that come from? Talk about > force feeding jargon. I wrote that one because I thought I remembered seeing the term used (without definition) on comp.arch. The regulars there seemed to think it was a *great* idea... -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)