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.gour...@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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
