Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:10:34 -0400 From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> To: Bob Hall <rjhjr0@gmail.com>, PJ <af.gourmet@videotron.ca>, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must Message-ID: <4AD90B7A.9070408@ibctech.ca> In-Reply-To: <20091017000439.GA25910@stainmore> References: <4AD8EB8F.9010900@videotron.ca> <20091017010758.088b8b8c.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AD9016E.20302@videotron.ca> <20091017000439.GA25910@stainmore>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bob Hall wrote: > 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. fwiw, upon first reading, I got the exact same impression about the writing under its context as Bob did. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AD90B7A.9070408>