Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:04:40 -0400 From: Bob Hall <rjhjr0@gmail.com> To: PJ <af.gourmet@videotron.ca> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must Message-ID: <20091017000439.GA25910@stainmore> In-Reply-To: <4AD9016E.20302@videotron.ca> References: <4AD8EB8F.9010900@videotron.ca> <20091017010758.088b8b8c.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AD9016E.20302@videotron.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 07:27:42PM -0400, PJ wrote: > Polytropon wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:54:23 -0400, PJ <af.gourmet@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> but from man tunefs: > >> BUGS > >> This utility should work on active file systems. > >> What in hades does this mean--just above it says cannot be run on active > >> file systems. ??? > >> > > > > It "should". This means: Don't try that. :-) > > > > My printer isn't printing! > > But it should. > > No, it is not printing! > > Yes, but it should. > > :-) > > > > > Aha! Gotcha! Whoever wrote that has made an unintentionnal booboo. It is > a subtle difference and is indicative that whoever wrote it is not a > native english user... the meaning is clearly "should be executed, done, > carried out, performed" - should work means it can be carried out - I > think the author meant to say "should not be done" I'm a native English speaker, and the manual makes perfect sense to me. It's very clear to me that since the statement is in the BUGS section, it means that the utility should, but doesn't. Since it follows a statement that the utility doesn't, the meaning is unambiguous.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091017000439.GA25910>