3 ms·
While the article does end by stating that it doesn't really matter (which is true), I feel like deviated for silly reasons, and ended weird. Specifically, a l
by arghwhat 6y ago
While the article does end by stating that it doesn't really matter (which is true), I feel like deviated for silly reasons, and ended weird.
Specifically, a lot of the journey was based on the false assumption that manpages will explain abbreviations or naming decisions, and should contain the exact expand form of such deviations - an assumption especially silly for commands as ancient as these, whose names were chosen on a whim by the original authors who were known to be allergic to command names longer than 3 characters.
Finally, despite initial evidence suggesting "pwd" meaning "print working directory", and finally finding rather conclusive evidence for multics documentation showing that "pwd" is an abbreviation of an earlier "print_wdir", the conclusion ends up being "we'll never know for sure".
I don't know about you, but it seems like the author is in denial here.
- arexxbifs 6y agoIt's already been said elsewhere in the thread, but Ken Thompson worked on MULTICS before he worked on UNIX. And in Plan 9, also by Thompson et al, there's pwd and pbd, where pbd is described as "prints the base name of the working (current) directory."[0] Three OS:es by the same guy(s) all have pwd, as abbreviated from "print" in the first one. So, yeah, it's "print". [0] https://9p.io/magic/man2html/1/pwd https://9p.io/magic/man2html/1/pwd
- Upvoter33 6y agoI had the same reaction. The multics find almost definitively proves it is "print working directory". You'd need a whole heap of other evidence to convince otherwise...
- arghwhat 6y agos/exact expand form of such deviations/exact expanded form of such abbreviations/