[comp.unix.internals] MULTICS and the Jargon File

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)

bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) (12/04/90)

In article <1YfTW4#8MK9Xf8YJtZH970VXl0fFB3R=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>I am removing comp.unix.wizards from the followup line. This discussion
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1)  Sigh...

2)  I was _wondering_ what his initial excuse was for posting
it to comp.unix.internals.  Turns out there was an indirection
he didn't account for.  ('Noalias' raises its ugly head...)

				--Blair
				  "3)  Anyone got any threes?"