[9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Anthony Martin]

That reference has been there since first edition Unix:

	For years when several calendars were in vogue in
	different countries, the calendar of England (and
	therefore her colonies) is printed. P.S. try cal of 1752.

The 1752 is the key here. That is the year that England (and
her colonies) switched to the Gregorian calendar. France did
it in 1582, Russia in 1918, etc. That note is telling you which
calendar the cal(1) command uses. It's important.

Why get rid of it?

Cheers,
  Anthony

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Jacob Moody]

On 2/13/24 11:42, Anthony Martin wrote:
> That reference has been there since first edition Unix:
> 
> 	For years when several calendars were in vogue in
> 	different countries, the calendar of England (and
> 	therefore her colonies) is printed. P.S. try cal of 1752.
> 
> The 1752 is the key here. That is the year that England (and
> her colonies) switched to the Gregorian calendar. France did
> it in 1582, Russia in 1918, etc. That note is telling you which
> calendar the cal(1) command uses. It's important.
> 
> Why get rid of it?
> 
> Cheers,
>   Anthony

I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.

I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
like to be more direct with it.

- moody

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[ori]

Quoth Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org>:
> On 2/13/24 11:42, Anthony Martin wrote:
> > That reference has been there since first edition Unix:
> > 
> > 	For years when several calendars were in vogue in
> > 	different countries, the calendar of England (and
> > 	therefore her colonies) is printed. P.S. try cal of 1752.
> > 
> > The 1752 is the key here. That is the year that England (and
> > her colonies) switched to the Gregorian calendar. France did
> > it in 1582, Russia in 1918, etc. That note is telling you which
> > calendar the cal(1) command uses. It's important.
> > 
> > Why get rid of it?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> >   Anthony
> 
> I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
> I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
> itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
> England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
> I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.
> 
> I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
> like to be more direct with it.
> 
> - moody

Please be very careful touching any political phrasing around
time. Timezones are political entities.

OpenBSD's phrasing:

     The Gregorian Reformation is assumed to have occurred in 1752 after the
     2nd of September.  By this time, most countries had recognized the
     Reformation (although a few did not recognize it until the early 1900s).
     Eleven days following that date were eliminated by the Reformation, so
     the calendar for that month is a bit unusual.

Ubuntu and FreeBSD's phrasing (and a new flag):

     -s country_code
             Assume the switch from Julian to Gregorian Calendar at the date
             associated with the country_code.  If not specified, ncal tries
             to guess the switch date from the local environment or falls back
             to September 2, 1752.  This was when Great Britain and her
             colonies switched to the Gregorian Calendar.

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Anthony Martin]

Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> once said:
> I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
> I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
> itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
> England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
> I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.
>
> I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
> like to be more direct with it.

Understood. I suggest either reverting the commit if you, like
myself, enjoy Unix history or restoring the original but with the
parenthetical about the colonies removed. Just saying England
should be fine.

Cheers,
  Anthony

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Dave Woodman]

On 13/02/2024 18:21, Anthony Martin wrote:
> Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> once said:
>> I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
>> I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
>> itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
>> England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
>> I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.
>>
>> I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
>> like to be more direct with it.
> Understood. I suggest either reverting the commit if you, like
> myself, enjoy Unix history or restoring the original but with the
> parenthetical about the colonies removed. Just saying England
> should be fine.
>
> Cheers,
>    Anthony
>
Sitting here in Blighty I agree that the original wording seemed to 
imply that the colonies were still a thing. As an absolute minimum, 
re-phasing to be 'former colonies' if the original intent of 
geographical scope needs  to be maintained, otherwise just England, as 
proposed.

Dave.

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Stanley Lieber]

On February 13, 2024 1:30:07 PM EST, Dave Woodman <dave@naffnet.org.uk> wrote:
>On 13/02/2024 18:21, Anthony Martin wrote:
>> Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> once said:
>>> I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
>>> I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
>>> itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
>>> England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
>>> I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.
>>> 
>>> I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
>>> like to be more direct with it.
>> Understood. I suggest either reverting the commit if you, like
>> myself, enjoy Unix history or restoring the original but with the
>> parenthetical about the colonies removed. Just saying England
>> should be fine.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>    Anthony
>> 
>Sitting here in Blighty I agree that the original wording seemed to imply that the colonies were still a thing. As an absolute minimum, re-phasing to be 'former colonies' if the original intent of geographical scope needs  to be maintained, otherwise just England, as proposed.
>
>Dave.
>

during the 20th century, particularly at the height of the cold war, it was common to make sardonic references to the no longer quite extant british empire. the author of this man page was almost certainly not a british national.

sl

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[ori]

Quoth Dave Woodman <dave@naffnet.org.uk>:
> On 13/02/2024 18:21, Anthony Martin wrote:
> > Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> once said:
> >> I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
> >> I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
> >> itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
> >> England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
> >> I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.
> >>
> >> I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
> >> like to be more direct with it.
> > Understood. I suggest either reverting the commit if you, like
> > myself, enjoy Unix history or restoring the original but with the
> > parenthetical about the colonies removed. Just saying England
> > should be fine.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >    Anthony
> >
> Sitting here in Blighty I agree that the original wording seemed to 
> imply that the colonies were still a thing. As an absolute minimum, 
> re-phasing to be 'former colonies' if the original intent of 
> geographical scope needs  to be maintained, otherwise just England, as 
> proposed.
> 
> Dave.

My proposed color for this bikeshed:

	'The date of the Gregorian Reformation in England (Sept 2, 1752) is assumed.'

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Jacob Moody]

On 2/13/24 13:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> Quoth Dave Woodman <dave@naffnet.org.uk>:
>> On 13/02/2024 18:21, Anthony Martin wrote:
>>> Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> once said:
>>>> I admit I was unfamiliar with the varying adoption dates.
>>>> I thought it was referring to the use of the Gregorian calendar
>>>> itself, not the adoption date. I removed it because referring to
>>>> England's colonies in the present tense rubs me the wrong way.
>>>> I pitched this on the grid and others had also shared my reading of this.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that we can document that this is the adoption rate used, but I would
>>>> like to be more direct with it.
>>> Understood. I suggest either reverting the commit if you, like
>>> myself, enjoy Unix history or restoring the original but with the
>>> parenthetical about the colonies removed. Just saying England
>>> should be fine.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>    Anthony
>>>
>> Sitting here in Blighty I agree that the original wording seemed to 
>> imply that the colonies were still a thing. As an absolute minimum, 
>> re-phasing to be 'former colonies' if the original intent of 
>> geographical scope needs  to be maintained, otherwise just England, as 
>> proposed.
>>
>> Dave.
> 
> My proposed color for this bikeshed:
> 
> 	'The date of the Gregorian Reformation in England (Sept 2, 1752) is assumed.'
> 

I personally agree with what Ori has purposed here if this works for others as well.
Sorry for my misinformed original patch.

- moody

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[hiro]

my problem here is that colonialism still exists, and this removal
would trick people to beleive it doesn't, which is a common rhetoric
harming the colonies further.

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Jacob Moody]

On 2/15/24 05:52, hiro wrote:
> my problem here is that colonialism still exists, and this removal
> would trick people to beleive it doesn't, which is a common rhetoric
> harming the colonies further.

What present day colony of England exists?

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Stanley Lieber]

On February 15, 2024 8:27:11 AM EST, Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> wrote:
>On 2/15/24 05:52, hiro wrote:
>> my problem here is that colonialism still exists, and this removal
>> would trick people to beleive it doesn't, which is a common rhetoric
>> harming the colonies further.
>
>What present day colony of England exists?
>
>

the western imagination!

sl

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Stanley Lieber]

On February 15, 2024 8:29:30 AM EST, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>On February 15, 2024 8:27:11 AM EST, Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> wrote:
>>On 2/15/24 05:52, hiro wrote:
>>> my problem here is that colonialism still exists, and this removal
>>> would trick people to beleive it doesn't, which is a common rhetoric
>>> harming the colonies further.
>>
>>What present day colony of England exists?
>>
>>
>
>the western imagination!
>
>sl
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur0bM4-fC_s

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Dave Woodman]

On 15/02/2024 13:27, Jacob Moody wrote:
> On 2/15/24 05:52, hiro wrote:
>> my problem here is that colonialism still exists, and this removal
>> would trick people to beleive it doesn't, which is a common rhetoric
>> harming the colonies further.
> What present day colony of England exists?

There are some overseas territories, but no colonies - however this may 
not be Hiro's intent - other forms of colonialism are practised by many 
countries (cultural, economic etc) and these are not necessarily to the 
benefit of all...

Not trying to provoke a debate, merely observing!

Dave

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Jacob Moody]

On 2/15/24 07:34, Dave Woodman wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 13:27, Jacob Moody wrote:
>> On 2/15/24 05:52, hiro wrote:
>>> my problem here is that colonialism still exists, and this removal
>>> would trick people to beleive it doesn't, which is a common rhetoric
>>> harming the colonies further.
>> What present day colony of England exists?
> 
> There are some overseas territories, but no colonies - however this may 
> not be Hiro's intent - other forms of colonialism are practised by many 
> countries (cultural, economic etc) and these are not necessarily to the 
> benefit of all...
> 
> Not trying to provoke a debate, merely observing!
> 
> Dave

Sure, but I admit this feels a bit like a stretch. The reason the original
present tense wording bothered me was that I feel like many groups have
expanded a great deal of effort in order to no longer be called English colonies.
So referring to them as such felt disrespectful. The original does not strike
me as some commentary on modern day imperialism.

Re: [9front] Re: commit 671d8daa0f2d7f067b8ab3d547adbd718da93fe9

[Kurt H Maier]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:53:21AM -0600, Jacob Moody wrote:
> 
> Sure, but I admit this feels a bit like a stretch. The reason the original
> present tense wording bothered me was that I feel like many groups have
> expanded a great deal of effort in order to no longer be called English colonies.
> So referring to them as such felt disrespectful. The original does not strike
> me as some commentary on modern day imperialism.
> 

As sl mentioned, previous generations found it amusing to refer to
former colonies (especially the US) as colonies.  It wasn't
disrespectful of the colonies but instead meant to be derisive toward
the British Empire in a ha-ha-only-serious way.  Another salient point
is that there is no American law establishing a specific calendar; even
after the Revolution, most states (either constitutionally or among
their earliest statutory actions) explicitly declared adoption of
British law as of a certain date, to be modified therewith by any
American laws that happen to conflict or override.  These 'reception
statutes' basically forked what was known as common law, which is why we
keep hearing about ancient British insanity when the Supreme Court is
particularly desperate to legislate from the bench.

I'll note however that the actual Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 does
not use the word 'colonies' at all, instead referring to his Majesty's
dominions and countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, belonging
or subject to the crown of Great Britain.

I propse, in lieu of "England and her colonies," the message be
explicit, that the program will use the calendar as described in the
Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 -- or if you really want to stick it to
them, the British Calendar Act of 1751.

khm