5 Ağustos 2020 Çarşamba tarihinde Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) < mtk.li...@gmail.com> yazdı:
> On 8/5/20 7:12 PM, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > 5 Ağustos 2020 Çarşamba tarihinde Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The > Open > > Group <austin-group-l@opengroup.org> yazdı: > > > >> Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 11:28:45 -0400 > >> From: "Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group" < > >> austin-group-l@opengroup.org> > >> Message-ID: <1d8c5e6e96fbdd47ce143a566b57d > b2c803d4898.ca...@gnu.org> > >> > >> | do you consider the pseudoterminal as providing to the terminal, or > the > >> | terminal as providing to the pseudoterminal. > >> > >> How did anyone ever get to a question like that? - there are a pair of > >> devices which between them implement a pseudo-terminal (which is just > >> like a terminal, to the application, but isn't one ... hence > >> pseudo-terminal). > >> > >> Personally I'm quite happy with the existing terminology, and see no > >> particular need for change (as close to meaningless as the terms are > >> in this context - they are well established, anything different will > >> just create confusion). > >> > >> > > Couldn't agree more. I don't understand what problem such a change in the > > terminology is supposed to solve. > > The problems have already been widely discussed elsewhere. For a > summary, see, for example, https://lwn.net/Articles/823224/ > > I see, but changing well established, concrete terms with barely related, abstract, far-fetched alternatives just to make a bunch of oversensitive snowflakes doesn't make any sense (to me, at least). If this change is going to happen no matter what we say, at least add a glossary somewhere for us non-native speakers where we can look up what each nonsensical alternative term actually means, unless you want to exclude us too, of course. > Thanks, > > Michael > > -- Oğuz
