From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 5121df66 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 12:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 263C9A1F59; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:10:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DD5A1F2A; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:09:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lZUrMDof"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 433F6A1C5C; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:09:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-yw1-f42.google.com (mail-yw1-f42.google.com [209.85.161.42]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BA00A1C50 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:09:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f42.google.com with SMTP id g194so14201492ywe.7 for ; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 04:09:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YGesOnvyogSwZuvR2LpYXkmJm2UllNYelsrbUjvUR/M=; b=lZUrMDof4x0m+QO5OltIORMo5f9jNnqUdsFa6S0tby4sjdO8buEOZN5pX72bjs7qYA DQxu2+JZgNLbXGPETS9luyUKGaKQHmE2WylWbttcB2am+9scK6syJDoDQQYKA52fk779 Ecd4e5lyE8M6SqAoCrqz+Sni9uma7vem79W5eutUB5JZg9eA0BfpwlmVPXbgV6E5UBQm zpJ96PmaHEIdbQgDu59PNeAfTrCB4d+yRcJj0CRtysQKX2X0FSKhpAKRamT3bmix39mI CPDwXUnSKsSUDiWWQ115bmo3RGzrspzHY8ExmMZDG0Ts6Xql+4DanWWF8Qxv2mPKT2NZ Y36g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YGesOnvyogSwZuvR2LpYXkmJm2UllNYelsrbUjvUR/M=; b=VrPTiWd5QTkeKBYoJfVu6JgoaleZGjLPSv8ZFaBo+hMW3rzqgXSIgBlg3R69vGibir cyEokyNHZ1qu7Tmy6bchUYLXaJ4TPcyXZ29EXUd0TswPlRJaiaLOUcwYCi859KX7Lmnc 7WEdzEMSXvHkvFuxsVykHzY8YPfRX/BI45wg44xFr0aeTO4loQ99e7pUO1MMjLSzJ8so VQy3dXakhpO4yWizvSP8WWLNKYbOAV9uos9A3Hicb7Xb/E3bR4jdAfTcNmNzWcJYY4Xo M3MLqvvJt63asyq4HRpuCaBymbn3nsV/u6QDKSZULXNTS+eRc4mi0iKMZH5D+p1Ux8mZ HR+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukechxd4w67R1Cvhk/jNWWQGy2CEX5OTu+MDf5UqiNFxeKbvsCXy xOcklfTmj/uSY3AllcRncQYDn+xhPHRvxkv/H8s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN41GB5NU/IeqMsRMC4AO/BOUPXEEGXP9ZUYz3U0B5LoNcIBNArofW0cl0EaSph09Oe6wkOH+JiXh5siPd3vmsM= X-Received: by 2002:a81:3d88:: with SMTP id k130mr31638600ywa.438.1546690188455; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 04:09:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a25:f305:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 04:09:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <16F2E714-06E8-4BE5-A963-FCE0E11F1507@jctaylor.com> References: <201901050226.x052QigU089781@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <16F2E714-06E8-4BE5-A963-FCE0E11F1507@jctaylor.com> From: Ed Carp Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 05:09:47 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bG6Fnu9PJk2i1xb6AM1hnUEHPtg Message-ID: To: William Corcoran Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [TUHS] Isaacson v Unix X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "tuhs@tuhs.org" , Doug McIlroy Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Nonsense from someone who evidently had some sort of axe to grind. Kerninghan, Ritchie, Pine, Thonpson, Joy, and the rest being excluded is like crediting everything that Sun has done to Scott McNealy. Sounds like the marketers being credited with innovation. On 1/5/19, William Corcoran wrote: > Okay, I will say it: Fake News. > > The irony is that UNIX through programs like troff/nroff maintained > extensive and elaborate mechanisms to support citations. Indeed, there w= as > a time when research required meticulous care of citations. > > In fact, I would argue that the importance of the great breakthrough UNIX > papers by Thompson et al. in combination with the many excellent cites > within are as significant of a work product as the UNIX proper. > > I used to think that the greatest attribute of a digital document was its > inability to suffer decay, degrade or otherwise fade away like its analog > analog. > > Yet, digital document decay occurs indirectly as we can see here with > Isaacson=E2=80=99s work product: Revisionism by omission. > > It=E2=80=99s as simple as it is dangerous. Since newer is ALWAYS better= , the > classic texts will eventually disappear replaced by garbage paradoxically > =E2=80=9Cfilled=E2=80=9D with omissions. > > Bill Corcoran > =E2=80=9COne small step for main; one giant leap for mainkind.=E2=80=9D > > > >> On Jan 4, 2019, at 9:27 PM, Doug McIlroy wrote: >> >> I was given a copy of Walter Isaacson's "The Innovators: How a Group of >> Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution". It devotes >> ten pages to Stallman and Gnu, Torvalds and Linux, even Tannebaum and >> Minix, but never mentions Thompson and Ritchie. Unix is identified only >> as a product from Bell Labs from which the others learned something--he >> doesn't say what. I have heard also that Isaacson's "Idea Factory" >> (about Bell Labs) barely mentions Unix. Is Isaacson blind, biased, >> or merely brainwashed? >> >> In the case of Steve Jobs, Isaacson tells not just that the Alto system >> from Xerox inspired him, but also who its star creators were: Lampson, >> Thacker and Kay. But then he stomps on them: "Once again, the greatest >> innovation would come not from the people who created the breakthroughs, >> but from the people who applied them usefully." While he very describes >> innovation as a continuum from invention through engineering to >> marketing, >> he seems to be more impressed by the later stages. >> >> Or maybe he just likes to tell stories, and didn't pick up all the >> good ones about Ken. Isaacson describes spacewar, arguably the first >> stage of computer-game innovation, at great length. At the same time, >> all he has to say about early-stage operating systems is a single >> sentence that credits John McCarthy with leading a time-sharing effort >> at MIT. (In my recollection, McCarthy proseletized; Corbato led.) He >> tells how ARPANET, which he says was mainly developed by BB&N, connected >> time-shared computers, but breathes not a word about Berkeley's work, >> without which ARPANET would have been an open circuit. >> >> "Innovators" won general critical praise. A couple of reviews predicted >> it would become the standard of the field. However, an evidently >> knowledgeable review in IEEE Annals of the History of Computing faulted >> it for peddling familiar potted legends without really digging for >> deeper insight. Regarding Thompson and Ritchie, it looks more like >> overt suppression. >> >> Doug >