Norman Wilson scripsit:
But if you follow the references cited to support the
cron acronyms, you
find that random unsupported assertions in conference papers do count.
That's not a lot better.
Well, of course there are conferences and there are conferences. The
only conference I've ever had a paper published at, Balisage, is as
peer-reviewed as any journal. (And it is gold open access and doesn't
charge for pages -- the storage costs are absorbed as conference overhead.)
I'd like to see a published, citable reference
for the true origin
of `cron'. Even better, better published material for a lot of the
charming minutiae of the early days of UNIX. (Anyone feel up to
interviewing Doug and Ken and Brian and whoever else is left, and
writing it up for publication in ;login:?)
It can't be just raw oral history, though, or it's a primary source again.
People's memories *are* fallible. It's got to to be legitimate historical
But I'd be satisfied if we could somehow stamp
out the use of spurious
references to support spurious claims.
I suppose you could get the original author(s) to print a retraction.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If [Tim Berners-Lee] has seen farther than others,
it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves. --Mike Champion