Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 12 November 2007 11:47 : \____
>
>> dapunka <dapunka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> On 11 Nov, 22:14, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > ____/ Matt on Sunday 11 November 2007 12:59 : \____
>>>>
>>>> >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> >>> MIT releases the sources of MULTICS, the father of UNIX!
>>>>
>>>> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> >>> | This is extraordinary news for all nerds, computer scientists and the
>>>> >>> | Open Source community: the source code of the MULTICS operating
>>>> >>> | system (Multiplexed Information and Computing Service), the father of
>>>> >>> | UNIX and all modern OSes, has finally been opened.
>>>> >>> `----
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.kirps.com/web/main/_blog/all/mit-releases-the-sources-of-m...
>>>>
>>>> >> Not clear why you didn't mention 'MULTICS' in the subject line of your
>>>> >> post.
>>>>
>>>> > I never heard about MULTICS before, so I was (perhaps wrongly) assuming
>>>> > that saying "the father of UNIX"--as in the headline of the cited blog
>>>> > item--would be OK.
>>>>
>>>> You took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say "most
>>>> people probably haven't heard of multics, so it would be a sh1t
>>>> headline."
>>>>
>>>> My case proven, I think.
>>>
>>> I'm not much of a geek, but I know what MULTICS was, in relation to
>>> UNIX. Hell, most any history of the Free Software movement will go
>>> through the basics: At Bell Labs, there was MULTICS, then UNIX...
>>> which then leads by different paths to BSD (Thompson), GNU (Stallman)
>>> and Linux (Torvalds). Even Wikipedia tells it that way, methinks.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, so in your world, everyone has read the same things as you?
>>
>> I think not...
>
> dapunka makes a good point though. I don't know how I ever missed it. I'll
> admit that I have poor knowledge of the UNIX family tree.
>
My point remains that most people I know wouldn't know what Multics is or
was, or what the significance of it is or was, including most engineers.
Few people take a great interest in such things.
A good comparative example would be the michaelson-morley experiment in
the phsysics of relativity. I doubt you could find even an undergraduate
physicist who wouldn't know what the experiment did, how it worked,
and how important it was, and yet, I'll wager you'll find almost no
engineers know about it, let alone comp-sci people.
It is good editorial style to explain such things to normal people. The
people who know already know, so it doesn't matter for them, other than
the occasional grumpy gripe along the lines of "I know this fact, so
everyone else should", which is naive.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
