From: AB
Subject: jargon file

I strongly urge everyone who reads Unix-Haters to drop a
note to er@al.gol.tla expressing your concern that
he may be violating the spirit of the original jargon file.

Recall that we have not actually -seen- what he has
proposed to do, so don't jump down the man's throat, but I
think he could use some reinforcement on the idea that part
of the ITS culture was a healthy disrespect for Unix, and
that for many of us this is still the case. Be reasonable,
calm and brief. Don't antagonize him. just make your
point.

It would probably help if you can impress him with your
ITS credentials. Like if you ever helped maintained ITS, or
some ITS system program, be sure to mention that.

From: DC
Subject: message to ER

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 13:35:25 -0800
From: DC
To: er@al.gol.tla

Hi,

I've heard you are working on ai:gls;jargon >, to which
I contributed several entries (which appear also in the
published version). It seems to me that the file documented
a culture that no longer exists, because it was tied to a
particular period, particular long-dead machines and
networks, and particular institutions that have changed
unrecognizably. It doesn't, therefore, seem meaningful to
revise it.

It is a spendid idea to document (for instance) current
unix culture, but such a document should be clearly distinct
from The Hackers' Dictionary, not a revision. It should
have a new title, and perhaps a different format. It should
not include words from jargon > that are not current (as,
I think, relatively few are).

Making a new book a ``revision'' of jargon > would imply
a kind of continuity between late-70s ARPANet culture and
early-90s unix culture that simply doesn't exist. To do so
would confuse members of the latter culture and annoy
members of the former. Contemporary unix culture contains
many more people than the group jargon > was written for and
about. They would be best served by an entirely new book
that documents their own jokes and terminology in a way that
reflects the contemporary style.

From: CG

Here's the body of my message to him. I seem to have
misplaced the headers:

I've seen forwardings of your postings on
alt.computers.folklore about the jargon file and understand
that some ITS hackers are less than thrilled by some of your
modifications of the file. It may be that your intentions
have been misrepresented to me, but if not, I have a few
things to say.

I was barely an ITS hacker (although I had an account on
AI for a while), but instead went through RSTS, NOS, and
Genera before getting stuck with Unix, so I don't quite have
the same purist attitude that some of them may have.
However, if it is indeed true that you're altering insults
about Unix to be about MSDOS instead, this does bother me.

It bothers me because it sounds like you're revising
history. New insults about MSDOS are fine (as well as
insults about RSTS, NOS, or Genera), but you aren't
reporting on a culture if you make these changes. To remove
the anti-Unix slurs in a documentation of computer culture
would be like rewriting history to say that Ronald Reagan
was elected unanimously and that nobody opposed any of his
policies.

A documentation of the computer culture as it exists on Unix
hosts today could be interesting, but I respectfully request
that you not modify the ITS era entries as you add new ones.
You should, however, document what part of the culture they
came from. As I recall, the original jargon file spoke of
Stanfordisms and MITisms.

Most of the original jargon file should be listed as
ITSisms. Note that it would be worth doing the reseach to
find out what other cultures they might exist in such as
Multics, Genera, VMS, etc. The computer culture is not a
single culture, but is a number of different cultures. In
fact, proper research should document phrases as saying that
they developed in the ITS user community as such-and-such,
and then migrated into the Unix community as so-and-so.

Certainly, if a phrase or piece of terminology was only
used in the ITS community, it shouldn't be rewritten so that
it could be used in the Unix community. Your purpose should
not be to provide people with a collection of cute things to
say, but instead to document what people do say.

I find that it's interesting that none of the registered
unix-haters had anything to do with your version of the
file. You'd probably not be getting jumped on if you'd
contacted us and asked if we'd like to review what you were
doing. This file really shouldn't be made Unix-centric, and
to allow non-Unix-philiacs a review might help to keep you
intellectually honest.

Besides, the phrase "MSDOS weenie" doesn't have the same
ring to it as "Unix weenie", and "Weenix" can't be
translated into anti-MSDOS-speak at all. "MSWeenos"?

From: DC
Subject: ER's reply to me

[ Apparently he found my message less compelling than some of you did.]

Are GLS, RMS, et al. being wedged, is this guy's project
being misrepresented to us, or is he misrepresenting
their support? Or what? (Sigh.) (What can you expect
from someone who signs himself ``the mad mastermind of
TMN-Netnews?'' We used to throw highschool students off
AI for lesser infractions...)]

>From: (ER)
Subject: Re: your mail
To: DC
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 18:14:12 EST

> Making a new book a ``revision'' of jargon would imply a
kind of continuity between late-70s ARPANet culture and
early-90s unix culture that simply doesn't exist.

I disagree, and so do GS and RS and the other four major
authors of the original Jargon File.

> To do so would confuse members of the latter culture and
annoy members of the former.

So far, the only people who have seemed either confused or
annoyed are a couple of rather troglodytic ex-ITSers. The
UNIX culture loves what I'm doing, I'm swamped with new
entries and supportive email. And I've gotten more help than
criticism from ITS alumni.

Quite frankly, I've concluded that the only people offended
by the idea of jargon 2.x.x are people I don't mind
offending. I hope and trust you are not among them.

Would you like to enter changes or additions to your
previous entries, or submit any new ones?

From: MC

In article <1YqWpR#1YnZJF2ktJM020ODXT8YVbVG=er@al.gol.tla> ER writes:

> On the evidence available to me, [CS] speak[s] for a
minority which includes none of the principal authors of
the file.

> 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.

These statements are out-and-out lies.

ER has never communicated any of his editorial
choices to me until I took him to task for it on
alt.folklore.computers. Then all he did was send me a
message saying, in effect, "tough shit, ITS and the PDP-10
are dead and it's too bad if you don't like it."

From what Guy Steele sent me in private, I doubt that he is
correctly representing Guy either.

The issue was never one of PDP-10/ITS vs. Unix. The
PDP-10/Unix war was settled years ago. The issue is whether
or not you brand an entire culture "extinct" just because
the environment which birthed that culture has died. That
culture is alive and well today, having successfully
transplanted itself to Unix and reimplementing the beloved
features of the old environment on top of Unix.

From: IH

Perhaps someone should package this stuff up and send it to
GLS and RMS (I never had much of a chance to hack ITS so I
don't think I should do it) and ask if they are being
accurately portrayed. If not, one might consider sending a
note to this guy's publisher just to let them know what's
going on.

From: PB
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:03:08 EST

To: gs
Subject: jaron file redux

hey quux, we have been hearing rumors about some guy out in
east overshoe who intends to publish a revision of the
jargon file (as previously lifted by you off the ITS
machines, where it had been a communal construct, and
published in some random fashion). it sounds like what he
intends to do is RE-WRITE a bunch of the entries to change
their intent from denigration of unix to denigration of some
pc system (msdos?). that, of course, would be a significant
alteration from the original aim of the file, and a lot of
ITS lovers are objecting. this fellow has been contacted
online, and he claims he is working with you, RMS, and "most
of the other original authors", which he claims to number
about 4 more. what is the story?

From: GS

The project started out as an expansion and slight revision
of the file, with a view toward eventual distillation into
another book. By "the other original authors" he is
referring to the set of names on the first book:

Richard Stallman
Geoff Goodfellow
Raphael Finkel
Mark Crispin
Don Woods
myself

who were on it because they had made substantial
contributions both to the file and to the polishing of the
book version. I would certainly not want anyone to
understand from this that these were the only contributors
to the original file!

Anyway, Eric cut loose and published several updated
versions of the file to today's hacker community, which, for
better or for worse, is much more UNIX-oriented than that of
ten years ago. He has gathered tremendous amounts of new
material, much of it interesting. To the extent that we
augment the file, I think it's great. Historical
revisionism is, however, highly inappropriate, and there is
some debate over the designation and treatment of "obsolete"
entries.