eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/03/90)
Hah. Well, now I'm truly damned if I do and damned if I don't. A netter who shall remain nameless wrote: > If you change the opinions about Multics in there, you'll destroy the ENTIRE >history of the jargon file. Hatred of Multics founded ITS long before UNIX. >If you try to make things fair, you'll ruin it. So who'm I supposed to gratify? The pro-MULTICS crowd typified by Rick Smith who believe MULTICS has been unjustly shafted by the derogatory references in jargon-2.1.5, or the anti-MULTICS people who characterize it as a bloated failure, and argue that detestation of it is integral to the tradition I'm trying to preserve? This decision is not made any easier by the fact that I agree with both parties, nor by my growing certainty that I will be torched by indignant zealots whichever gang I hand the baby to. <sigh> Well, Eric, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it... I am removing comp.unix.wizards from the followup line. This discussion should move to alt.folklore.computers; for those who don't get alt.*, I will cross-post to comp.misc. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/03/90)
In article <1YfTW4#8MK9Xf8YJtZH970VXl0fFB3R=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > So who'm I supposed to gratify? The pro-MULTICS crowd typified by Rick Smith > who believe MULTICS has been unjustly shafted by the derogatory references in > jargon-2.1.5, or the anti-MULTICS people who characterize it as a bloated > failure, and argue that detestation of it is integral to the tradition I'm > trying to preserve? How about adding another appendix about the history of the Jargon file, and pointing out that the references to Multics are not necessarily fair nor are they necessarily the opinions of the current editor. You could also move the old MULTICS notes out to the obsolescent section, and put new ones in. > should move to alt.folklore.computers; for those who don't get alt.*, I > will cross-post to comp.misc. Perhaps we need a comp.sys.multics? (nooo, it's a joooooke) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) (12/04/90)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >Hah. Well, now I'm truly damned if I do and damned if I don't. A netter >who shall remain nameless wrote: >> ... hatred of MULTICS ... >>If you try to make things fair, you'll ruin it. The problem here is that the jargon file is one of the classic repositories of religous and theolgical thought on the essential goodness of one thing or another. The unnamed netter *is* right, in one sense, it isn't fair to pretend that everyone loved Multics. Those of ITS have every right to sneer at Multics -- they didn't like it and they DID something about it, heading off in a completely different direction. On the other hand, I felt incensed because I thought the anti-Multics feeling had increased in the new version over what I recalled from years past. The old entry describing HBD made it sound as if only certain dumb things were being condemned rather than the whole system. I assumed that the changes were caused by recent copy editing and fading memories. As for "ruining" the jargon file, that depends on what its purpose is. I don't think it should be limited to the point of view of its founders, any more than it should be limited to the set of words it originally described. If you're asking the net for opinions, then you're saying it will be a reflection of the net, and not just the apostles or heretics or whatever that started it. Rick. smith@sctc.com Arden Hills, Minnesota
dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) (12/04/90)
In article <1YfTW4#8MK9Xf8YJtZH970VXl0fFB3R=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: Hah. Well, now I'm truly damned if I do and damned if I don't. A netter who shall remain nameless wrote: > If you change the opinions about Multics in there, you'll destroy the ENTIRE >history of the jargon file. Hatred of Multics founded ITS long before UNIX. >If you try to make things fair, you'll ruin it. So who'm I supposed to gratify? The pro-MULTICS crowd typified by Rick Smith who believe MULTICS has been unjustly shafted by the derogatory references in jargon-2.1.5, or the anti-MULTICS people who characterize it as a bloated failure, and argue that detestation of it is integral to the tradition I'm trying to preserve? First of all, if you are really troubled about what to do here, I strongly suggest you consult with Guy Steele. He understands the points of view of both contingents, and, in my humble opinion, he is a man of extremely high integrity and fairness, and a fine diplomat, as well as having a great sense of humor. I was at the AI lab when he was compiling the jargon file, and while that jargon was in use. It is certainly true that many of the old-line ITS people had a hostility towards Multics. They also had just as much hostility toward Unix. And many of the people at the AI lab now have only bad things to say about Unix. I don't see why it is necessary to represent the former feelings and not the latter. No matter whether you like Multics or not, I think it's clear that the definition of BRAIN-DAMAGED should be revised from " [generalization of ``Honeywell Brain Damage'' (HBD), a theoretical disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms in MULTICS" to something like" [generalization of ``Honeywell Brain Damage'' (HBD), a theoretical disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms added to MULTICS by Honeywell". The latter obviously makes more sense than the former. Work done at MIT on Multics cannot be sensibly called HBD.
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec3.214212.15798@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes: >No matter whether you like Multics or not, I think it's clear that >the definition of BRAIN-DAMAGED should be revised from > >" [generalization of ``Honeywell Brain Damage'' (HBD), a theoretical >disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms in MULTICS" to >something like" [generalization of ``Honeywell Brain Damage'' (HBD), a >theoretical disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms added >to MULTICS by Honeywell". The latter obviously makes more sense than >the former. Work done at MIT on Multics cannot be sensibly called >HBD. By the way, those of us who do like Multics also used the term "HBD". In our case, though, it frequently referred to the disease that explained why Honeywell management refused to support Multics and why the sales organization was unable to market it. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (12/04/90)
The other major objectionable thing about the new jargon file (I have
marked up hundreds of minor things in a hardcopy of a version of a few
months ago) is the banishment of all the PDP-10 entries to a separate
appendix. That stuff belongs back in the main body.
The PDP-10 may be dead, but there are still a lot of corpses twitching
out there, and will be for a long long time. There are many more
PDP-10 systems running *today* than there ever were Multics systems.
I don't know if there are even any Multics systems running today.
Unbelievably, the extreme efforts to flush the PDP-10 extend to TECO,
dialects of which continue to run on far more computers today than
have ever run EMACS!!
I agree with toning down the extreme anti-Unix bias in the old Jargon
file, especially as most of those of us who made the remarks are now
themselves in the Unix camp. However, the example of the usage
"deserves to lose" should restore the published version's use of
"Unix" instead of "Multics" ["Boy, anybody who tries to use Unix
deserves to lose!" -- a statement which remains true to this day].
That particular line has special historical and sentimental value.
_____ | ____ ___|___ /__ 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.ph@ama-1.ama.caltech.edu (Paul Hardy) (12/04/90)
In article <12248@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
The other major objectionable thing about the new jargon file (I have
marked up hundreds of minor things in a hardcopy of a version of a few
months ago) is the banishment of all the PDP-10 entries to a separate
appendix. That stuff belongs back in the main body.
The PDP-10 may be dead, but there are still a lot of corpses twitching
out there, and will be for a long long time. There are many more
PDP-10 systems running *today* than there ever were Multics systems.
A current DEC-Direct catalogue will show that they offer a $25,000
trade-in value on a KL10. At this kind of price, DEC must not yet
consider it a dead machine (though they're working on that :-). Another
vote to leave it in the main section. At the risk of beginning a discussion
more suitable for alt.religion.computers, TOPS had things that VMS still
doesn't (and that's not to mention ITS!) All three of these things
(TOPS, ITS, PDP-10) deserve a place of honor in computer history.
As far as TECO goes, there's now a native-mode TECO on VMS (edit/teco),
so it's still alive and kicking on one OS (though TECO on the 10 was better).
(Oops! I mean _is_ better.) There's also a C version floating around in
the public domain.
--Pauleric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/05/90)
In <1990Dec3.193049.8771@sctc.com> Rick Smith wrote: > On the other hand, I felt incensed because I thought the anti-Multics feeling > had increased in the new version over what I recalled from years past. The > old entry describing HBD made it sound as if only certain dumb things were > being condemned rather than the whole system. I assumed that the changes were > caused by recent copy editing and fading memories. Certainly not by my intention. I actually don't think the relevant part of the BRAIN DAMAGE entry has changed since jargon-1. Hold on, lemme check...nope, it hasn't. Can we close this thread now? -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
slamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec3.193049.8771@sctc.com> smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes: >As for "ruining" the jargon file, that depends on what its purpose is. I don't >think it should be limited to the point of view of its founders, any more than >it should be limited to the set of words it originally described. If you're >asking the net for opinions, then you're saying it will be a reflection of >the net, and not just the apostles or heretics or whatever that started it. The original jargon.file was a quirky collection of the prejudices and prides of the AI hacker community of more than five years ago. In a sense, it is a snapshot, an historical document, the legacy of an era that has now largely passed. Five years, in this business, is a long, long time. The new jargon.file, as the poster indicates, will now reflect the moods and mores of the current net community, which is a much larger and much more diverse group. The two compilations, new jargon.file and jargon.file.Classic, are essentially different, but intersecting, sets. I applaud Eric's efforts at collecting this "wit" and "wisdom" and wish him the best in his efforts. spl (the p stands for propeller head for nearly three decades...) -- 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
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/06/90)
In <12248@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin wrote: > The other major objectionable thing about the new jargon file (I have > marked up hundreds of minor things in a hardcopy of a version of a few > months ago) is the banishment of all the PDP-10 entries to a separate > appendix. That stuff belongs back in the main body. I'm considering it. My problem is that while the PDP-10 isn't quite dead, it and a lot of the PDP-10 derived slang are no longer alive *in hackerdom*. You should notice that there are in fact a fair number of PDP-10-derived terms still in the main body -- BITBLT, PUSHJ/POPJ, MOBY spring to mind. Those are the ones still in use. > The PDP-10 may be dead, but there are still a lot of corpses twitching > out there, and will be for a long long time. There are many more > PDP-10 systems running *today* than there ever were Multics systems. > I don't know if there are even any Multics systems running today. Eh? I've been told that, leaving out the odd university relic and that museum piece in Sweden, there are exactly *two* active PDP-10 sites left and one of them is CompuServe. > Unbelievably, the extreme efforts to flush the PDP-10 extend to TECO, > dialects of which continue to run on far more computers today than > have ever run EMACS!! Again, this runs counter to what I think I know. When you consider that EMACS has propagated to a lot of different varieties of those UNIX boxen out there, I doubt it's true. I relegated TECO to the Appendix because at this point it's something hackers tell war stories about but don't *use*. TECOisms are no longer `live' slang. > I agree with toning down the extreme anti-Unix bias in the old Jargon > file, especially as most of those of us who made the remarks are now > themselves in the Unix camp. However, the example of the usage > "deserves to lose" should restore the published version's use of > "Unix" instead of "Multics" ["Boy, anybody who tries to use Unix > deserves to lose!" -- a statement which remains true to this day]. > That particular line has special historical and sentimental value. I didn't detect any `extreme anti-UNIX bias' in either of the two old versions (jargon.txt and Steele-1983), except possibly in the one remark you cite. My decision: it now reads `MESS-DOS' (accurately reflecting current hackish sentiment) but I have added a parenthetical note to the effect that ITS fans used to say this of UNIX. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
bygg@sunic.sunet.se (Johnny Eriksson) (12/06/90)
In article <1YgzZ0#1bb89X3cQmgD00tBfF8KX0N9=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: :In <12248@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin wrote: :> :> The PDP-10 may be dead, but there are still a lot of corpses twitching :> out there, and will be for a long long time. There are many more :> PDP-10 systems running *today* than there ever were Multics systems. :> I don't know if there are even any Multics systems running today. : :Eh? I've been told that, leaving out the odd university relic and that :museum piece in Sweden, there are exactly *two* active PDP-10 sites left :and one of them is CompuServe. : That museum piece? Which one of them? The Stacken Computer Club PDP-10 inventory: In computer room, running: VERA - 2065 (KL-10) Tops-20 version 7. KICKI - 1077 (Dual KI-10) Tops-10 version 7.02 (somewhat modified) This machine is currently not on the inter- net, since the ethernet attachment (a VAX- 11/780) is down since yesterday. Repairs are in progress. In computer room, power off state: SI - 2020 (KS-10) ITS. MX - 1080 (KL-10) ITS. This is KL-10 prototype # 2. ODEN - 1099 (Dual KL-10) Tops-10 version 7.03 TEMPEST - 1091 (KL-10) Tops-20 version 6. In computer room, no state at all: one more KI-10 CPU. In previous (not yet vacated) computer room: KATIA - 1050 (KA-10) Tops-10 version 6.03. If we ever decide to run this machine again, we will connect the BBN pager, and run TENEX. In storage: >= 2 KL-10 >= 1 KI-10 2 KS-10 On the way in: 3 KL-10. Other sites I know about in Sweden: Uppsala University Linkoping University Stockholm University Royal Institute of Technology Bofors Electronics AB The last site is commercial. : Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews) Johnny Eriksson.
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (12/06/90)
In article <1YgzZ0#1bb89X3cQmgD00tBfF8KX0N9=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >I'm considering it. My problem is that while the PDP-10 isn't quite dead, >it and a lot of the PDP-10 derived slang are no longer alive *in hackerdom*. So what? A lot of the slang in the original jargon file was already old or out of use. The entire reason for the jargon file was (1) to document the extant slang, (2) to preserve the older terms. You should not presume to put yourself in the position of deciding that something should be forgotten. >Eh? I've been told that, leaving out the odd university relic and that >museum piece in Sweden, there are exactly *two* active PDP-10 sites left >and one of them is CompuServe. BULLSHIT. I don't know where you got your information from, but that is totally wrong. Are you aware that every DEC-20 is a PDP-10? PDP-10 refers to the CPU; a DEC-20 is a PDP-10 running TOPS-20. >Again, this runs counter to what I think I know. When you consider that >EMACS has propagated to a lot of different varieties of those UNIX boxen >out there, I doubt it's true. Much of the commercial world refuses to run EMACS because it is "inefficient", but are happily TECOing to this day. > I relegated TECO to the Appendix because >at this point it's something hackers tell war stories about but don't >*use*. Again, bullshit. There is quite an active TECO user's group at DECUS. >My decision: it now reads `MESS-DOS' (accurately reflecting current hackish >sentiment) but I have added a parenthetical note to the effect that ITS fans >used to say this of UNIX. You should not presume to make such a decision without consultation and agreement with the others who worked on it before you. The Jargon file is community property, yes; but that does not give you or anyone ownership rights to it. The PDP-10 community was (and is) much bigger than ITS. Something like 5,000 systems were built. Don't jump to erroneous conclusions. I feel that you've done a lot of good work, but please do not go charging off deciding that something is "no longer important". _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ 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.
ph@sparc3.ama.caltech.edu (Paul Hardy) (12/06/90)
In article <1YgzZ0#1bb89X3cQmgD00tBfF8KX0N9=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
My decision: it now reads `MESS-DOS' (accurately reflecting current hackish
sentiment) but I have added a parenthetical note to the effect that ITS fans
used to say this of UNIX.
--
Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com
ITS hackers also used to say "Unix: a moment of convenience, a lifetime of
regret." (I wonder if it will turn out to be true :-). Unix types nowadays
say that about MS-DOS. Sic transit gloria mundi [Gloria got sick on the
subway on Monday].
By the way, Moby goes back a bit before the PDP-10, to the PDP-6 (other
instructions too). The "Moby Mem" (256 kwords) was one thing that gave
it the ability to run a decent timesharing system (ITS). Of course, disk
storage of some sort was also an issue!
--Paulde5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (12/06/90)
In article <1YgzZ0#1bb89X3cQmgD00tBfF8KX0N9=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>, eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > >Eh? I've been told that, leaving out the odd university relic and that >museum piece in Sweden, there are exactly *two* active PDP-10 sites left >and one of them is CompuServe. You've been told wrong. We've got one here running TOPS-10 (aka TENEX) that's slated for replacement within the next couple of years. And I managed a DECSYSTEM-20 running TOPS-20 (aka TWENEX) at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, VA, (home of the moth logbook). As far as I know, it's still being used to analyze Aegis data. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
rs@eddie.mit.edu (Robert E. Seastrom) (12/07/90)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > >Eh? I've been told that, leaving out the odd university relic and that >museum piece in Sweden, there are exactly *two* active PDP-10 sites left >and one of them is CompuServe. "Reports of my recent demise have been greatly exaggerated" - Mark Twain I can think of 3 or 4 commercial Tops-10 installations right off the top of my head, one used-equipment dealer who specializes in DECsystem-10 and DECSYSTEM-20 CPUs and peripherals, and 5 private individuals (including myself) who own DECSYSTEM 2020s - a total of 11 or so machines in all. There are at least a half dozen 2060s still on the Internet. Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes: > >We've got one here running TOPS-10 (aka TENEX) > No. TOPS-10 is a descendent of the PDP-6 and PDP-10 single-user DECtape and disk monitors. TENEX was developed at BBN, subsequently licensed to DEC, hacked on a lot, and then sold as TOPS-20. Digital did everything in their power to discourage use of the term "twenex". -- Internet: rs@eddie.mit.edu | Copyright: Protecting your right to Bitnet: RS@SESTAK | copy software. X.25: PSI%0240200101905::KICKI::RS | ---gumby@cygnus.com
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/07/90)
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: }In article <1YgzZ0#1bb89X3cQmgD00tBfF8KX0N9=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: }>I'm considering it. My problem is that while the PDP-10 isn't quite dead, }>it and a lot of the PDP-10 derived slang are no longer alive *in hackerdom*. }So what? A lot of the slang in the original jargon file was already }old or out of use. The entire reason for the jargon file was (1) to }document the extant slang, (2) to preserve the older terms. Oh? "The entire reason"? Huh? From what source do you speak so authoritatively? That it was may have been partly obsolete by tthe time YOU got a copy of it doesn't mean that it was ever *intended* to be a historical document. Going to the Hacker's Dictionary [done by the guys, the ONLY guys, who actually get a 'vote' in my book on what the "entire reason" for their labors was], and when many of these terms were even MORE out-of-date [by the time standards of those of us who lived with the jargon]. The Introduction reads: These are the words used for fun by the people who use computer for fun: the hackers. Here you will find almost nothign of those awful computer languages such as BASIC that can be written but not spoken. This book is, in fact, a revised version of the famous ``jargon file,'' a dictionary of slang terms cooperatively maintained by the hackers at advanced computers laboratories at Stanford University, [MIT], [CMU], and other places such as Yale University, Princeton University and [WPI]. some of the wores are fairly new; others have been used for over two decades; others were borrowed from other fields. You see anything in that about 'historical'? You see anything in that about preserving the quaint jargon that grew up around the use of tab equipment in the late 40's? IT is all written ruthlessly in the PRESENT text: even if you and I happen to know that some of that terminology is obsolete, it sure looks to me like they intended it not to be historical at all, but rather to be a snapshot of CURRENT usage within this odd subculture. My rule for things like this is that the folks who do the work get to say what their intent is... it is not for you or I to tell them how to do what they want. I quoted Guy's words from the Hacker's dictionary. Eric is working with Guy on this and presumably gets to chat with Guy about his editorial decisions. within VERY broad limits, I would mostly say that THEY get to decide, and I thought that Eric's guidelines made a lot of sense, and as described it would be a useful and interesting book. If _you_ want to do a "historical slang and folklore encyclopaedia", you can edit it via whatever rules you choose. /Bernie\
gkn@ucsd.Edu (Gerard K. Newman) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec6.134934.2785@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes: > >You've been told wrong. We've got one here running TOPS-10 (aka >TENEX) that's slated for replacement within the next couple of years. TOPS-10 .ne. TENEX. TENEX --> TOPS-20 (aka TWENEX, much to the chagrin of the LCG at DEC). You guys still running the quint-SMP KL? -- gkn Gerard K. Newman gkn@sds.sdsc.edu 619.534.5076 San Diego Supercomputer Center gkn@sdsc.bitnet 619.534.5152 FAX PO Box 85608 sdsc::gkn (27.1/span) San Diego, CA 92186-9784 ucsd!gkn
dboyes@brazos.rice.edu (David Boyes) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec6.134934.2785@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes: >In article <1YgzZ0#1bb89X3cQmgD00tBfF8KX0N9=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>, eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >>Eh? I've been told that, leaving out the odd university relic and that >>museum piece in Sweden, there are exactly *two* active PDP-10 sites left >>and one of them is CompuServe. Excuse me? My bogometer just triggered. I can think of at least half a dozen operating PDP-10s without even stretching hard -- CH2MHill, Bonneville Power Administration, NSWC, the DDN NIC, White Sands Missle Range (wsmr-simtel20.army.mil), University of Stockholm, U Wash Locke Center, the Shakespeare cluster at Stanford, etc. Bonneville Power was going around the Pacific Northwest not too long ago buying up everything that even smelled like a PDP-10 for spare parts. >Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) -- David Boyes |The three most dangerous things in the world: dboyes@rice.edu | 1) a programmer with a soldering iron, | 2) a hardware type with a program patch, and "Delays, delays!" | 3) a user with an idea.
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (12/08/90)
In <12392@milton.u.washington.edu> Mark Crispin wrote: > [replying to me] > >I'm considering it. My problem is that while the PDP-10 isn't quite dead, > >it and a lot of the PDP-10 derived slang are no longer alive *in hackerdom*. > > So what? A lot of the slang in the original jargon file was already > old or out of use. The entire reason for the jargon file was (1) to > document the extant slang, (2) to preserve the older terms. You > should not presume to put yourself in the position of deciding that > something should be forgotten. But this is precisely what I am *not* doing. Nothing from the original jargon file has been deleted! > > I relegated TECO to the Appendix because > >at this point it's something hackers tell war stories about but don't > >*use*. > > Again, bullshit. There is quite an active TECO user's group at DECUS. Fine. I'll move TECO back to the main text, then. > >My decision: it now reads `MESS-DOS' (accurately reflecting current hackish > >sentiment) but I have added a parenthetical note to the effect that ITS fans > >used to say this of UNIX. > > You should not presume to make such a decision without consultation > and agreement with the others who worked on it before you. The Jargon > file is community property, yes; but that does not give you or anyone > ownership rights to it. Nor have I claimed any. *None of my decisions are written in stone* -- all the editing is on-line, thank you, and changing things is really easy. Do you have a substantive problem with this particular one, or are you upset that I'm making routine editorial decisions at all? -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) (12/09/90)
ADP Network Services in Ann Arbor still has PDP-10s and 20s coming out their ears. In '82 I took a couple of HP engineers on a tour of the machine room. They were completely boggled -- then we crossed the room, opened a small door, and showed them another twice its size. Since then they've more than doubled the floor space. I've not been there since '83, but last I heard there were around 20 PDP-10s of 2 or 3 CPUs each, and 70 or 80 PDP-20s. Including a home made multiprocessor 20. Ken Thurman was the prime software architect, he's still around A2 somewhere tho no longer at ADP. -- "SO be it! The fate of the UNIVERSE is in your hands!" "Talk about job-related stress."