Why? Because it doesn't apply anymore?

Because it can help people realize they might have read this before (I had), which in turn can affect how one prioritizes which articles to read.

Also because "it's how it's done around here": the site is about news so it makes sense to at least tag possible re-posts to flag them as "not quite news yet still interesting and recommended reading".

Yes, because avoiding lots of LOC by relying on tons of external libraries is the new 'doing practically nothing'. /s

The article references an article published in 1991. Does that need stating too?

If this story was just a blogspam saying "Hey look I found this article from 1991 which is still relevant" then yes, because the story would be worth nothing by itself.

But this story is actually an email (from 2010) written by the guy WHO ORIGINALLY WROTE GREP, making it a pretty damn interesting source in its own right. In that sense, the 1991 article is very much an aside.

In conclusion, no.

> by the guy WHO ORIGINALLY WROTE GREP

Just a pedantic remark: He (Mike Haertel) originally wrote GNU grep. Grep, on the other hand, was originally written by Ken Thompson.

Good point, well made :)