On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:14:25PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-12-05 15:20, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 01:53:54PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > >> --- books/handbook/install/chapter.sgml 4 Dec 2006 14:43:50 -0000 > >> 1.338 > >> +++ books/handbook/install/chapter.sgml 5 Dec 2006 10:53:35 -0000 > >> @@ -2356,7 +2356,7 @@ > >> > >> <listitem> > >> <para>The address block being used for this local area > >> - network is a Class C block > >> + network is a (historical) Class C block > >> (<hostid role="ipaddr">192.168.0.0</hostid> - > >> <hostid role="ipaddr">192.168.0.255</hostid>). > >> The default netmask is for a Class C network > > > > Any reason we can't get rid of the mention of "class C" in both cases > > there? Something like: > > > > The address block being used for this local area network is > > 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255 with a netmask of 255.255.255.0. > > Or even better: > > The address block being used for this local area network is > <emphasis>192.168.0.0/24</emphasis>.
What is this new devilry!?
Seriously, I don't mind either way, but I don't know how much we assume
on the part of our users any more.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
pgpUCQQulU9wi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
