That's a values debate, I guess. What is the purpose of punishment? Is it to set an example to others, is it to remove a dangerous person from society, is it to prevent the criminal from reoffending, is it to satisfy society's desire to see wrongdoers punished?

He didn't reoffend (as far as we know), and in fact went on to become a highly-contributing member of society. His crime was not so egregious that recompense was impossible even in principle. I don't see how a harsher punishment for him would have produced an obviously better outcome. I think it would be more productive to argue that people who commit similar crimes should receive similar punishments as this, rather than arguing that he should have received a harsher punishment.

in those days computer crimes weren't punished that harshly. I'm surprised it was that severe, in fact, it sounds like there must have been some heavy hitters on the prosecution side.

You can't judge his behaviour without knowing his intent, and the culture of the late 80s and early internet.

Everyone hacked. When the internet was connected to Sydney University early 90s, all the students were grabbing Stanfords /etc/passwd files and peeking at the open X displays of people in Sweden. Etc. All for fun / curiosity.

You can be sure that even rtm's Dad did similar, perhaps confined to his lab / peers.

I don't know how obvious my Catholicism is but my mom will be glad to hear that. :)