From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 522 invoked from network); 11 May 2022 17:15:04 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 May 2022 17:15:04 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8521A9BB0D; Thu, 12 May 2022 03:15:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AD29BA54; Thu, 12 May 2022 03:14:27 +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="U4MSdBVa"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DBFE19BA54; Thu, 12 May 2022 03:14:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oa1-f46.google.com (mail-oa1-f46.google.com [209.85.160.46]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637AB9BA39 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 03:14:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oa1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-e656032735so3655271fac.0 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 10:14:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uONewEwIUc81UvUU9Vo0mzYXiMofHd0+bySGL7YH0Ns=; b=U4MSdBVa43/t6RQOIieV291hhriFFSVWA2nEKQF4M2Rkl0wPspTWTYcMu/kMihhW1K c+qsLe/nQeF6JH10w235DOeAOxyJCJC4wMYt0/a29N1CfxgmT1bfZY++LVmZJ1ja+/GG BzmNnYB9jhVNc94QDD9gqQBzRuJT9SRBng2orbweLA8y2kvJAIeBv51jMNQrW8guyNQS QC5b7h/BtsREVCIYsufzEl/ToBQfD5Nx7d71L2MPE7F+06q/BCmrL/A7YjYjLK0vEepF md6IrUL4Rc+ROC6qCMtMtTP2ZDRqcztfWfs56zS4tDsm+r7busvTuZyFhAXGMH2jrbB3 PYgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uONewEwIUc81UvUU9Vo0mzYXiMofHd0+bySGL7YH0Ns=; b=4XCMvwRmmJJkxU6mMLAuDNRICjIEwumnwW0CdAJBXVZJUwZq7nmP0MH3EvLriPS8H3 2I9nnQIHfPPDz5wRb3H3lBgsTNHeIiIM2HWak+AsMcEPYrO/RQlbgK8C0Wn+bWgzFjBh NkTUr0cXcWBzJErngpzjoXWOQCmCZHwLil5t+zQOKS0EsUBJ1GCq5lXdSEvi1kgibflY Yu0nnLczZsv2yD/BvtaftRwGrEJbf2rGDRuZBG9jYf4gVeHN3mbjWD7kx95wWTy1bkHx AAwyLsm7IfdgMkmk88xN3W34TAMgwduR2s001kW0SmFdD/nd8rNbHVwavrtexoUWH8cQ JjCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lTp374gCIgyHaL4fbGqceDU6IAZCC+PTBLIWGY/nwTqw3FGI0 S007mNAA4Y4DGG7Kjw6tlqKpqO1VIWzOhU3pWMQA2jPcfyQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyOCzwbPvOKDYTlitaj0zeaaxeMv34ijN8ahaHcYlXLdJ6TNM0hTKglY6iPgc78nv764AO8/vtXgUfZ+U8IQo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d61e:b0:ee:5f6:4b25 with SMTP id a30-20020a056870d61e00b000ee05f64b25mr3241285oaq.278.1652289265538; Wed, 11 May 2022 10:14:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dan Cross Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 13:13:49 -0400 Message-ID: To: TUHS main list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd1db005debf9251" Subject: [TUHS] Capitalization question: UNIX/Unix and MULTICS/Multics? 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: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000bd1db005debf9251 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is tangentially related to Unix, and came up randomly at work yesterday. In Kernighan's Unix memoir, on page 9, he touches briefly on the typography of "Unix": "(Multics was originally spelled MULTICS, but the lower-case version is less visually jarring; as with UNIX versus Unix and some other all-caps words, I=E2=80=99ll use the nicer-looking form even though it=E2=80=99s no= t historically accurate.)" Here, he is talking about interning at MIT in 1966. bwk would certainly know better than me, but I can find no historical reference to this "MULTICS" spelling; is anyone familiar with that? The earliest reference I can find (the 1965 paper from the FJCC: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1463891.1463912) uses the more "Multics" styling, but it may have been typeset later. Alternatively, could someone send me Brian's email address? - Dan C. --000000000000bd1db005debf9251 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is tangentially rela= ted to Unix, and came up randomly at work yesterday.

In Kernighan's Unix memoir, on page 9, he touches briefly on the typ= ography of "Unix":

"(Multics w= as originally spelled MULTICS, but the lower-case version is less visually = jarring; as with UNIX versus Unix and some other all-caps words, I=E2=80=99= ll use the nicer-looking =C2=A0form even though it=E2=80=99s not historical= ly accurate.)"

<= /font>
Here, he is talking=C2=A0= about interning at MIT in 1966. bwk would certainly know better than me, bu= t I can find no historical reference to this "MULTICS" spelling; = is anyone familiar with=C2=A0that? The earliest reference I can find (the 1= 965 paper from the FJCC:=C2=A0https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1463891.1463912= ) uses the more "Mult= ics" styling, but it may have been typeset later.

Alternatively, could someone send me Brian's email address?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Dan C.

--000000000000bd1db005debf9251--