4 ms·

Wikipedia article on this OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incompatible_Timesharing_System&oldid=1000950474 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t

by svat 6y ago

Wikipedia article on this OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incompatible_Timesharing_System&oldid=1000950474 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incompatible_Time... See also the lesser known west-coast alternative: WAITS (at Stanford): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WAITS&oldid=990284777 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WAITS&oldid=99028...

musicale 6y ago
WAITS is a great name for an OS.
kzrdude 6y ago
Why a permalink?
- svat 6y ago
  Probably doesn't matter much here but I try to always use a permalink when linking to Wikipedia, as a matter of policy. This is because: 1. The permalink is the link to the Wikipedia page as I actually saw it (and can sort of vouch for). Without a permalink, when someone visits the Wikipedia page weeks, years, or even minutes later, they may see something entirely different: maybe it has been (temporarily) vandalized, or sections removed or substantially rewritten, or the whole page has been made a redirect to some other page, or worse. 2. Even if the above reasons don't apply (and someone may actually want to see the latest version), it's very easy to go from the permalink to the current version (there's a prominent notice at the top of the page), while it's hard to go in the other direction (find the version at the time my comment was posted). So the permalink version carries "more information" / is less "lossy". Taken to an extreme, this reasoning would suggest doing the same when linking to any page on the internet: save it on the Wayback Machine and use that URL. (People have suggested this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24406193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24406193) The reason I don't (so far) do that is: 1. On Wikipedia, permalinks are really quick and easy to obtain (it's in the sidebar to the left, and you can even just right-click and copy URL) -- saving something to the Wayback Machine takes several seconds, 2. In the case of Wikipedia, it's clear that the site owner actually intends for the permanent link to be used. (No concerns about losing clicks or whatever.) As a corollary, the permalink URL is guaranteed to work equally well (in terms of uptime, how fast it loads, CSS/JS, etc) as the current version of the page itself. Can't say the same for arbitrary websites. 3. Sites other than Wikipedia don't keep changing all the time, and there's a lower risk of being rewritten as a result of my linking to it, or being replaced by some vandalism or defacement. (Most pages on Wikipedia are very good at reverting vandalism in minutes at most, but still...)
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    Good point. I only ever use permalinks like that on github (linking to code of a specific commit). One can use 'y' as a shortcut on github to reload the current file with a fixed commit hash URL (instead of current branch or what it is).

by svat 6y ago

musicale 6y ago

WAITS is a great name for an OS.

kzrdude 6y ago

Why a permalink?

svat 6y ago
Probably doesn't matter much here but I try to always use a permalink when linking to Wikipedia, as a matter of policy. This is because: 1. The permalink is the link to the Wikipedia page as I actually saw it (and can sort of vouch for). Without a permalink, when someone visits the Wikipedia page weeks, years, or even minutes later, they may see something entirely different: maybe it has been (temporarily) vandalized, or sections removed or substantially rewritten, or the whole page has been made a redirect to some other page, or worse. 2. Even if the above reasons don't apply (and someone may actually want to see the latest version), it's very easy to go from the permalink to the current version (there's a prominent notice at the top of the page), while it's hard to go in the other direction (find the version at the time my comment was posted). So the permalink version carries "more information" / is less "lossy". Taken to an extreme, this reasoning would suggest doing the same when linking to any page on the internet: save it on the Wayback Machine and use that URL. (People have suggested this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24406193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24406193) The reason I don't (so far) do that is: 1. On Wikipedia, permalinks are really quick and easy to obtain (it's in the sidebar to the left, and you can even just right-click and copy URL) -- saving something to the Wayback Machine takes several seconds, 2. In the case of Wikipedia, it's clear that the site owner actually intends for the permanent link to be used. (No concerns about losing clicks or whatever.) As a corollary, the permalink URL is guaranteed to work equally well (in terms of uptime, how fast it loads, CSS/JS, etc) as the current version of the page itself. Can't say the same for arbitrary websites. 3. Sites other than Wikipedia don't keep changing all the time, and there's a lower risk of being rewritten as a result of my linking to it, or being replaced by some vandalism or defacement. (Most pages on Wikipedia are very good at reverting vandalism in minutes at most, but still...)
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Good point. I only ever use permalinks like that on github (linking to code of a specific commit). One can use 'y' as a shortcut on github to reload the current file with a fixed commit hash URL (instead of current branch or what it is).