Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:43:03 -0400 From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> 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: <4AD92127.1040702@ibctech.ca> In-Reply-To: <4AD91DE0.3030701@videotron.ca> References: <4AD8EB8F.9010900@videotron.ca> <20091017010758.088b8b8c.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AD9016E.20302@videotron.ca> <4AD90946.4020204@ibctech.ca> <4AD91DE0.3030701@videotron.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
PJ wrote: > Steve Bertrand wrote: >> 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" >>> >> If you feel that you've found a 'bug' within the manual/documentation of >> a piece of software or function, I highly recommend that you pass it by >> other users/developers ( as you've kind-of done here ), and then contact >> the person who is normally listed in the AUTHOR section of the man page >> after you get a consensus on whether the manual, the code or you have >> the bug :) >> >> If you believe the problem is an engish-linguistic one (and the man page >> is written in english), let the author know this. Provide the correct >> verbiage, and an explanation of what your words mean compared to theirs >> (remember, english may not be their first language). >> >> Also, take a look at RFC 2119 for the keyword 'SHOULD' and 'SHOULD NOT'. >> RFC 2119 is highly regarded as the authority for many keywords, and a >> quick reference of it may help when trying to explain to an author where >> you feel their documentation is incorrect (or lacking). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Steve >> >> > It is simple to understand Emglish but not so simple what was meant by > whoever wrote it...I cannot correct something that I do not uderstand... > come on, man, that should be easy to understand. I understand that I'm confused :) > I am afraid that with all the globalization people still do not > understand that translations should be left to experts... an by that I > mean the final version should always, and I mean always, be by a native > speaking person. That's an unfair thing to say. Are you saying that if someone with a French native tongue wrote software that would benefit everyone, and they wrote the manual in English to reach a broader audience, that the manual shouldn't be released unless proof-read and re-written by an English native? Vous faire ce travail, mon ami? Je n'aime pas d'accord avec votre utilisation du mot doit. ...the manual is available. I didn't mean to dis-respect you, I just meant that if one 'could' help, then the developer is the one to hit up. > I speak english, french, italian, some spanish and german as well as > latvian... but I would never attempt to translate into any language > other than English... and then not without the help of the original > language's originator. ;-) Nice... How 'bout Dutch ;) You will understand then: Ne dis pas que la documentation ne peuvent etre ecrites par un auteur si leur lange nest pas une espece indigen. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AD92127.1040702>