4 ms·

I suppose these articles aren't timestamped on purpose, but that is really annoying.

• cnst 7y ago
  Did the mention of "Windows Media Player" gave it up? :-) I think they're written in a neutral tone which is supposed to withstand the test of time, plus edited for corrections, but I do agree that it'd be nice to dates for some context. (It would appear that the original article was published in 2010.)
• tjr 7y ago
  From the bottom of the page: Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 Richard Stallman Updated: $Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:39 $
  • ahbyb 7y ago
    Interesting... one does not expect the timestamp to be there!
    • smhenderson 7y ago
      That was the traditional place to put it in the 90’s IIRC. Although I seem to remember seeing Updated snips under the title as well sometimes.
    • hinkley 7y ago
      I think that's an old CVS/SVN trick that didn't come forward into git. There's a token pattern you can put into files that gets updated at commit time.
  • zemo 7y ago
    the article was published March 18th 2010 in the Boston Review. I don't think the omission is deliberate, I think it is a mistake.