I defer to Logie's more accurate and nerdoise account! I also remember the t-shirts. I think I bought two to celebrate being invited onto the AoIR executive that year. On a broader matter, does anyone know of a good article or two that discusses 'versions' in software from a cultural / socio-political perspective? I am still working on my historicity of Web 2.0 stuff and need something which helps me explain the semiotics of writing / reading in versions.... Matt Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor and Head of Department, Internet Studies School of Media, Culture and Creative Arts Curtin University of Technology, CRICOS 00301J Australia m.allen@curtin.edu.au http://netcrit.net <http://netcrit.net/> @netcrit +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 9266 3166 (f) Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellow ________________________________ From: Logie [mailto:logie@umn.edu] Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 12:32 AM To: Matthew Allen Cc: aoir list Subject: The Date and the Version Thang On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Matthew Allen wrote:
Re date and version confusion:
Personally I blame Nancy and Steve - why didn't they have the first conference in 2001 or (in one of those kooky computer-speak things, call the first conference v0.0). *grin*.
Matt - Don't blame Nancy and Steve. Blame me. The first conference was simply called "Internet Research" full stop. As I was working as local chair for the second conference, I set about designing a logo for the program and for the t-shirts that I hawked incessantly throughout the conference. In a moment of cutey-pie nerdosity, I hit upon the all-too-obvious idea of calling the conference "version 2.0" and thus we descended into the rabbit hole. That logo is online (as are the remnants of the conference site, to my horror) here: http://aoir.org/2001/. Personally, I think we should have followed Apple's move, and called the 10th Conference "Internet Research X" and then all subsequent conferences would have been decimal increments within "X." More to the point, we COULD all decide that the whole "point oh" thing is sounding a bit 20th Century these days. Which reminds me, why didn't anyone fix that whole 20th Century = the 1900s thing in time for it to not confuse the hell out of me? Yours, in befuddlement, Logie John Logie Associate Professor of Rhetoric Department of Writing Studies University of Minnesota
The Internet begs to differ: http://aoir.org/2000/ The first conference was numbered 1.0. Why? I certainly don't remember that particular decision. (There's nothing unique about that, I've forgotten plenty of other ones as well.) You could say v0.0 was the Drake conference in 1998 (WorldWideWeb and Contemporary Theory, organized by Thom Swiss and Andrew Herman, from which a book resulted with the same title) at which, after hearing about lack of interest in Internet research in various disciplinary associations I said something like, "Why don't we start our own association?," and that the beta versions were the meetings at several disciplinary organizations' conferences to drum up interest in (and volunteers for) AoIR. Does anyone actually remember the conferences by number? I confess I don't. I remember them by place, people, parties and presentations (not necessarily in that order, but can I get extra credit for alliteration?). Steve On Jul 27, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Matthew Allen wrote:
I defer to Logie's more accurate and nerdoise account! I also remember the t-shirts. I think I bought two to celebrate being invited onto the AoIR executive that year.
On a broader matter, does anyone know of a good article or two that discusses 'versions' in software from a cultural / socio-political perspective? I am still working on my historicity of Web 2.0 stuff and need something which helps me explain the semiotics of writing / reading in versions....
Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor and Head of Department, Internet Studies School of Media, Culture and Creative Arts Curtin University of Technology, CRICOS 00301J Australia m.allen@curtin.edu.au http://netcrit.net <http://netcrit.net/> @netcrit +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 9266 3166 (f) Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellow
________________________________
From: Logie [mailto:logie@umn.edu] Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 12:32 AM To: Matthew Allen Cc: aoir list Subject: The Date and the Version Thang
On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Matthew Allen wrote:
Re date and version confusion:
Personally I blame Nancy and Steve - why didn't they have the first conference in 2001 or (in one of those kooky computer-speak things, call the first conference v0.0). *grin*.
Matt -
Don't blame Nancy and Steve. Blame me. The first conference was simply called "Internet Research" full stop. As I was working as local chair for the second conference, I set about designing a logo for the program and for the t-shirts that I hawked incessantly throughout the conference. In a moment of cutey-pie nerdosity, I hit upon the all-too-obvious idea of calling the conference "version 2.0" and thus we descended into the rabbit hole.
That logo is online (as are the remnants of the conference site, to my horror) here: http://aoir.org/2001/.
Personally, I think we should have followed Apple's move, and called the 10th Conference "Internet Research X" and then all subsequent conferences would have been decimal increments within "X."
More to the point, we COULD all decide that the whole "point oh" thing is sounding a bit 20th Century these days. Which reminds me, why didn't anyone fix that whole 20th Century = the 1900s thing in time for it to not confuse the hell out of me?
Yours, in befuddlement,
Logie
John Logie Associate Professor of Rhetoric Department of Writing Studies University of Minnesota
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
yep, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/aoir/2000/ is the original site, which is copied at steve's url below. I actually do remember them by number. 1.0 lawrence 2.0 minnesota 3.0 maastricht 4.0 toronto 5.0 sussex 6.0 chicago 7.0 brissie 8.0 vancouver 9.0 copenhagen 10.0 milwaukee As for the first 1.0, that was air-meet and Nancy and I, I think. but yes there were many beta's as Steve indicates. On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
The Internet begs to differ: http://aoir.org/2000/ The first conference was numbered 1.0. Why? I certainly don't remember that particular decision. (There's nothing unique about that, I've forgotten plenty of other ones as well.)
You could say v0.0 was the Drake conference in 1998 (WorldWideWeb and Contemporary Theory, organized by Thom Swiss and Andrew Herman, from which a book resulted with the same title) at which, after hearing about lack of interest in Internet research in various disciplinary associations I said something like, "Why don't we start our own association?," and that the beta versions were the meetings at several disciplinary organizations' conferences to drum up interest in (and volunteers for) AoIR.
Does anyone actually remember the conferences by number? I confess I don't. I remember them by place, people, parties and presentations (not necessarily in that order, but can I get extra credit for alliteration?).
Steve
On Jul 27, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Matthew Allen wrote:
I defer to Logie's more accurate and nerdoise account! I also remember the t-shirts. I think I bought two to celebrate being invited onto the AoIR executive that year.
On a broader matter, does anyone know of a good article or two that discusses 'versions' in software from a cultural / socio-political perspective? I am still working on my historicity of Web 2.0 stuff and need something which helps me explain the semiotics of writing / reading in versions....
Matt
Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor and Head of Department, Internet Studies School of Media, Culture and Creative Arts Curtin University of Technology, CRICOS 00301J Australia m.allen@curtin.edu.au http://netcrit.net <http://netcrit.net/> @netcrit +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 9266 3166 (f) Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellow
________________________________
From: Logie [mailto:logie@umn.edu] Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 12:32 AM To: Matthew Allen Cc: aoir list Subject: The Date and the Version Thang
On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Matthew Allen wrote:
Re date and version confusion:
Personally I blame Nancy and Steve - why didn't they have the first conference in 2001 or (in one of those kooky computer-speak things, call the first conference v0.0). *grin*.
Matt -
Don't blame Nancy and Steve. Blame me. The first conference was simply called "Internet Research" full stop. As I was working as local chair for the second conference, I set about designing a logo for the program and for the t-shirts that I hawked incessantly throughout the conference. In a moment of cutey-pie nerdosity, I hit upon the all-too-obvious idea of calling the conference "version 2.0" and thus we descended into the rabbit hole.
That logo is online (as are the remnants of the conference site, to my horror) here: http://aoir.org/2001/.
Personally, I think we should have followed Apple's move, and called the 10th Conference "Internet Research X" and then all subsequent conferences would have been decimal increments within "X."
More to the point, we COULD all decide that the whole "point oh" thing is sounding a bit 20th Century these days. Which reminds me, why didn't anyone fix that whole 20th Century = the 1900s thing in time for it to not confuse the hell out of me?
Yours, in befuddlement,
Logie
John Logie Associate Professor of Rhetoric Department of Writing Studies University of Minnesota
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Political Science Virginia Tech Information Ethics Fellow Center for Information Policy Research Everything you can imagine is real. --Pablo Picasso
Matt - (apologies to jeremy who got this first) - I think Steven Levy discusses Macintosh methods for versioning in his classic: Levy, S. (1994). Insanely great: The lives and times of Macintosh, the computer that changed everything. New York, Viking. or perhaps it is in the Hackers book (same author). I also think there is a mention of versions/revisions in the other PC history classic: Frieberger, P. and M. Swaine (1999). Fire in the valley: The making of the personal computer. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA, Osborne/McGraw-Hill. But overall as I understand it, the revision naming conventions that the Mac uses came directly from unix. Look at Matt Ratto's work on Linux, might be something there. Also there's the Software studies people: Software Studies: A Lexicon Edited by Matthew Fuller (2008) MIT Press. Cheers, Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD. Special Projects, Faculty of Arts & Science Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW AUSTRALIA Mobile +(61)(0)438 233344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/esm/staff/pages/drall/ Popular Culture Association of Australia & New Zealand POPCANNZ Conf. Auckland, New Zealand July 2011
Numeric software versioning most certainly goes back much further than Unix. Grace Hopper's pre-Flow-Matic compilers were called A-0, A-1, A-2, and A-3. A-0 was done in 1951, nearly two decades before Unix. (This was still on Univac, and the word "software" hadn't been coined yet.) The versions of Fortran were similarly labeled "Fortran I", "Fortran II", etc. http://bit.ly/a0comp The first X.Y style version that I know of is Lisp 1.5, from early 1960s. It was called "1.5" because it was different from "Lisp 1" but wasn't yet the "Lisp 2" that was already already discussed. So, "1.5" was supposed be half-way between 1 and 2. After 1.5 there was a 1.6. (There are some papers on this from the 1970s in ACM Digital Library, but not on the open web, so no links.) I am not sure whether the later X.Y style versioning was influenced by Lisp, but that would be plausible, since Lisp 1.5 was quite popular. But perhaps there was software with X.Y-style version numbers even before the 1960s. - yuri On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Denise N. Rall <denrall@yahoo.com> wrote:
Matt - (apologies to jeremy who got this first) -
I think Steven Levy discusses Macintosh methods for versioning in his classic: Levy, S. (1994). Insanely great: The lives and times of Macintosh, the computer that changed everything. New York, Viking. or perhaps it is in the Hackers book (same author).
I also think there is a mention of versions/revisions in the other PC history classic: Frieberger, P. and M. Swaine (1999). Fire in the valley: The making of the personal computer. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA, Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
But overall as I understand it, the revision naming conventions that the Mac uses came directly from unix. Look at Matt Ratto's work on Linux, might be something there. Also there's the Software studies people:
Software Studies: A Lexicon Edited by Matthew Fuller (2008) MIT Press.
participants (5)
-
Denise N. Rall -
jeremy hunsinger -
Matthew Allen -
Steve Jones -
Yuri Takhteyev