> I don't know how much do you know about UNIX history...
Perhaps more than you. I started a decade before you, so I was there for more of it than you were. (Not at the beginning, I admit.)
> but you are willfully misquoting me.
Not willfully - that takes intent. What, specifically, did I say you said that isn't what you said, or that was out of context? Having read your reply here, I still don't see what I'm misquoting.
Being there and studying it is very different. It wouldn't surprise you to discover that the authors of UNIX were there, would it? And yet, somehow, I believe that I know better than they do -- how comes?
You wouldn't believe it, but things often are easier to judge in hindsight, than when being involved with them...
> willfully
You pretend that I said that UNIX got into its position by being awful inside and out, but what I wrote is that it got into it's position despite being awful inside and out. In other words, you pretend to misunderstand me, and then argue with something I didn't say.
Perhaps more than you. I started a decade before you, so I was there for more of it than you were. (Not at the beginning, I admit.)
> but you are willfully misquoting me.
Not willfully - that takes intent. What, specifically, did I say you said that isn't what you said, or that was out of context? Having read your reply here, I still don't see what I'm misquoting.