Another classic thread in the UNIX-HATERS archive is the outraged reaction to Eric The Flute's desecration of the Jargon file and misrepresentation of hacker culture.

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 10:54:45 PST
From: DH
Subject: MC:HUMOR;JARGON >

The JARGON file is being updated. The guy doing so has
changed the nasty references to Unix to refer to MS-DOS
because "all the ITS partisans have now become Unix
partisans, since the Unix philosophy is the same as the ITS
philosophy." as he says.

From: CS

Why don't we write a complaintive group letter to the
publisher?

From: KP

Isn't there some pending federal law against colorizing
things that were originally black and white? Perhaps we
should each call our congresspeople and lobby for its
immediate passage of that so we can go after this vandal in
court...

From: KH

YAAAARRGGGH!!!

If you would be gracious enough to identify this, um, I
believe the proper term is "loser", then we might have the
opportunity to clarify our philosophical differences.

From: MT

This guy is also a flaming political loony, so make sure to
mention that you're an agent of the international communist
conspiracy if you write to him (unless you're trying to be
persuasive, in which case you should claim to be a sworn
enemy of the ICC).

From: ER
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc
Subject: Re: the jargon file
Date: 18 Dec 90 17:30:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers

CS wrote:

> ER asserts that "all the ITS partisans have
> now become Unix partisans, since the Unix philosophy is
> the same as the ITS philosophy", and discusses his new
> edition of our old jargon file.

I never claimed that the UNIX philosophy is "the same" as
ITS's.

> In fact, most of the "ITS partisans" are really unhappy,
> discouraged, and severely disapproving of this effort to
> re-write the jargon file.

I've received critical email from two ex-ITS people. I've
also received entries, help, and encouragement from at least
six others. Not to mention five of the six First Edition
authors. The sixth, mrc, is unhappy about some editing
decisions I've made but hasn't questioned that the job needs
doing.

On the evidence available to me, you speak for a minority
which includes none of the principal authors of the file.

> Also, we are definitely not "Unix partisans".

I have been corrected on this in email. I naively thought
that because MIT had gone with UNIX and most of the
ex-ITSers I know are hacking UNIX these days the ex-ITS
crowd could be fairly said to `prefer' UNIX. As it turns
out, a lot of ex-ITSers would rather worship the ghosts of
departed operating systems and bitch about UNIX rather than
implement something they like.

I think this is very sad.

> It's unfortunate that one of the side-effects of not
> taking steps to protect this material is that people can
> steal it and use it misrepresent us, but who would have
> guessed?

I am doing my very damnedest not to misrepresent anybody;
the First Edition authors (with whom I regularly discuss my
editorial choices) can testify to this.

Any ITSer who thinks he's being `misrepresented' by anything
in the file is welcome to submit *specific changes* to
correct the errors. Bellyaching at me about `philosophy'
doesn't help any party unless you're willing to get specific
about what you don't like.

I am not an autocratic editor, as any number of people
who've sent me changes can testify. I'll either merge in the
change or explain why I didn't. If after that you still
disagree, I'm willing to debate matters in the open.

As for `stealing', this is unfair and insulting. You don't
own JARGON.TXT and I don't claim to. If anyone has
proprietary rights on any of this material it's Guy Steele
via the 1983 paper addition, and he emailed the ms of that
book to *me* to use as I saw fit.

> ER probably isn't doing this out of malice; I'm
> sure he just doesn't understand what the jargon file was
> really all about.

I'm sure I don't understand *your* theory of what it was all
about. Your implied claim to authority on the subject is
shaky at best.

> The rest of us are a little baffled at GS's
> cooperation with him.

Why don't you *ask* him, then?

Here's a clue, closed-captioned for the thinking-impaired:

Maybe Guy Steele and I agree that the ITS culture had
something valuable to transmit to latter-day hackerdom.
Maybe we agree that it's worthwhile that that tradition not
be lost, that it add its own flavor to the UNIX-dominated
hackerdom of today. Maybe I still believe that.

Maybe I'm beginning to doubt it now...

Followups to alt.folklore.computers ONLY.
--
ER

From: CS
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: jargon file

ER,

Apparently you've misconstrued my complaints. I
certainly never claimed to have personal ownership over the
jargon file; I was relaying the feelings of a large number
(probably most, despite whatever you wish to believe) of the
members of the community which the original JARGON file
documents (or, used to, anyway). I don't know what the
legal copyright status of the material is, or what it was
when it was published commercially. At least the ethics of
commercially usurping community property were and are
debatable.

I don't really have time or inclination to argue with
you about your notions. But imagine if someone took a book
that you and your playmates had written about your
childhoods, "updated it" to coincide with their very
different attitudes (which you, for the most part disagreed
with), and then published it under its original title. I
think that's part of how a number of us feel. Most of the
other MIT-AI people I've talked to seem to feel this way.

I don't read this newsgroup, so if anyone wants to
correspond about this, you'll have to send me email. But
mostly, I'm not very interested. I'm certainly not
interested in debating your confused interpretations of what
our culture was about, whether myself or my associates
represent that culture, nor am I interested in debating the
technical merits of random operating systems. My intentions
in my previous posting were mostly to clear up various
strange assertions regarding the old ITS crowd, and relay my
sense of violation. Sometimes I think there's no hope of
people ever understanding what was going on back then. Oh,
well. I think I've said all I wanted to.