subject:"RE\: I hate to bitch but bitch I must"

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-19 Thread Bob Hall

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:48:55AM -0400, PJ wrote:
 Bob Hall wrote:
  On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 05:36:43PM -0400, PJ wrote:

  Bob Hall wrote:
  
  On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 02:34:40AM +, Mark wrote:


  Actually, this has got very little to do with being a native English
  speaker or not. It's ere a matter of intonation (which, in writing, can
  only be conveyed to a certain degree, of course). 'Should' can certainly
  mean Don't try that. As in:
 
  Will the ice hold me?
  Well, technically it should.
 
  (Meaning: it probably will, but I'm not overly confident.)
  
  
  Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
  common in English to shorten
Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.


  Absolutely not! There is nothing to suggest either statement above. If
  one says it should work, it can mean (of course, it changes within
  different contexts) that all is ok and normal conditions (whatever they
  may be) will allow things to function correctly. There is certainly no
  implication about confidence... where do you get that? 
  
 
  From common English usage. Specifically, where? Australia, England, 
  Russia, France, USA, Canada... Again, that is your personal interpretation 
  and certainly not common English usage. Or better yet, try common sense. 
  Or, better yet, you *should* go back to school.

The third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage gives British and
American usage.  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage
concentrates more on American usage. I don't have access to any
specifically Australian or Canadian reference books.  Anyone interested
in the topic can look up the use of should as a modal verb and see
what is common usage.

My compliments to the authors of the man page for their clear and
concise use of English. My complements to Polytropan for spotting the
fact that should was being used as a modal verb, even if he didn't
call it that. My compliments to Warren Block for submitting the PR.  I
believe that's my cue to exit the thread.
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread Scott Bennett

 On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:18:48 +0200 Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:59:18 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com 
wrote:
 I understand it, but see ambiguity in the word should.  Easy enough to 
 rewrite:
 
 BUGS
^
   ^^^
  ^
 ^^^
   ^^^
   ^^^
   ^^^
   ^^^

 Please note that the section header that reads BUGS is the operative
word here.

 This utility does not work on active file systems.
   ^^
 The above is the sole bug described in the BUGS section.  (The other
entry in this section is quite obviously just a silly play on words, not a
bug.)
 
 Now here's my challenge to PJ: use send-pr(1) or the web PR interface at 
 http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html to submit this as a doc bug report.
 
 That's how FreeBSD gets better, and how you help the next person in the 
 same situation.

That's a good advice, because in this particular situation,
the utility in question does NOT work on active file systems,
it refuses to do so and throws the proper error message.

There are cases where a program should work (under certain
circumstances), but if a specified setting is not met, it
works incorrectly (but still works), like using dump on a
filesystem that's changing - usually producing a defective
dump file that cannot be properly restored.

For completeness: If a program does not work, the manual
should not say it should work, but it does not work
regarding a given situation.

 The problem has nothing to do with the documention or any translation
problem, as I see it.  The problem is simply the failure of the OP to read
the section title, which clearly says, BUGS.
 Now please, all of you, stop spamming the list with all this nonsense.
The very first respondent could well have pointed out the problem, and that
would have been the end of the matter.


  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**
* Internet:   bennett at cs.niu.edu  *
**
* A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army.   *
*-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 *
**
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread Ian Smith

PJ,

having (in this case at least) the luxury of reading freebsd-questions 
as a digest, I'm going to quote a few of your extracts from several 
messages, largely without surounding context, as it's all incredibly 
repetitive, masively overquoted and mostly just grasping for ambiguity 
as Warren Block so eloquently put it.

  To be as precise as possible, it means normally it should work so go
  ahead; then the question is - what do you mean by normally.
  In our case above, the instructions were to do the operation with the
  disk not in use and the os in SUM. That's very clear. Now, I f they
  wanted to point out a bug, the bug means that there is an anomaly under
  certain circumstances - and in this case there really is no bug as it is
  very clear as to how the instructions should be used. If they consider
  the operation under a live files system a bug, then they should just
  make a warning and say something along the lines of do not use on live
  system as that may destroy data or something to that effect.

I think you're only being so obtuse about this because you haven't had 
much experience reading man pages, and seem to expect them to conform to 
some sort of English Literary standards that are entirely inapplicable.

  Just a note: I find it strange that nobody looked into the problem of
  the confusion... I thought I had pointed out where the co;nfusion
  arises... and no one seems to have either understood the inconsistencies
  or bothere to read the explanation... oh well... let's keep on
  blundering away... ;-)

Must we?  The confusion, and the seems-like-a-hundred messages it's now 
spawned, is all yours.  Many have tried relentlessly and unsuccessfully 
to explain to you what just about everyone else has had no difficulty in 
understanding, because they don't try applying linguistic contortions to 
a simple statement by its (entirely English-speaking) authors.

 M. McKusick, W. Joy, S. Leffler, and R. Fabry, A Fast File System for
 UNIX, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2, 3, pp 181-197, August
 1984, (reprinted in the BSD System Manager's Manual, SMM:5).

BUGS
 This utility should work on active file systems.

 You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish.

If you want to see the _fascinating_ history of the tunefs(8) man page:
  http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/tunefs/tunefs.8

First go right down the bottom, Rev 1.1, and choose 'annotated' view .. 
you'll see the original text committed by Rodney Grimes.  If you don't 
know who Marshall McKusick, Bill Joy, Sam Leffler and Robert Fabry are, 
do some googling, or start at http://www.mckusick.com/articles.html

Rev 1.4 adds an interesting warning .. perhaps some pedant had suggested 
that a little humour was inappropriate :)  At some later point, mckusick 
corrected the spelling of 'Daemon', and later ru@ changed can't to 
cannot (FFS!).  This is a very carefully considered BUGS section, with 
over 15 years' of history.  Mess with it at your peril :)

  What in the world is RFC 2119? (that's a rhetorical question) I
  prefer to stick to orinary dictionaries, like Oxford, Collins, Webster...
  then again, my college university studies were in English lit... but I'm
  afraid I have have neglected that and have been somewhat dragged down to
  the level of the plebes in the hope they may catch some of my
  meanings... :-D

You need to use the right terms in the appropriate context, and it's 
best to try avoiding condescension when dealing with people who may not 
have attained your literary qualifications, but who clearly know a hell 
of a lot more about this subject than you do.

If you don't know about RFCs you'll get lost with lots of UNIX (and 
other computer system) references.  Google is your (and our!) friend.

   I understand that I'm confused :)

Ok.

   Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
   common in English to shorten
  Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.
 
  Absolutely not! There is nothing to suggest either statement above. If
  one says it should work, it can mean (of course, it changes within
  different contexts) that all is ok and normal conditions (whatever they
  may be) will allow things to function correctly. There is certainly no
  implication about confidence... where do you get that? It can mean ver
  confident just as well. And dropping a sentence is a very presumptuous
  assumption. but is doesn't is a specific condition... and there can me
  innumerable conditions.

Semantic obfuscation and failure to understand usage of 'BUGS' sections.  
Try reading a whole lot more manpages to get their drift, eg what would 
you make of BUGS: bound to be some without knowing the wisdom therein?

  In the end, it's up to the author to clarify... I don't understand what
  he's trying to do as on my stem his instructions/example just do not
  work anyway. :-(

You really cannot go on blaming others for your lack of comprehension, 
and

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread krad

2009/10/17 michael michael.copel...@gmail.com

PJ wrote:

michael wrote:

PJ wrote:

Why is it that the manual pages, as thorough as they may be, are very,
very confusing.
Perhaps I am being too wary, but I find that too many
instructions/examples are stumbling blocks to appreciation of the whole
system:
for instance, let's look at the instructions for changing disk labels
with glabel or is it tunefs ?
man glabel(8):

for UFS the file system label is set with
tunefs(8)

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tunefssektion=8apropos=0manpath=FreeBSD+7.2-RELEASE
.

what happened to glabel?
man tunefs(8)
The *tunefs* utility cannot be
run on an active file system. To change an active file system, it must
be downgraded to read-only or unmounted.

So, you have to run tunefs from an active file system to modify another
disk?
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. ???
To change the root file
system, the system must be rebooted after the file system is tuned.

You can tune a file system, but you cannot tune a fish.
How cute... And fish eat bugs.

Seriously, now to the manual:
To create a permanent label for a UFS2 file system without destroying
any data, issue the following command:
# tunefs -L /home/ /dev/da3

Oh? home is what? What does this have to do with the partitions?
Here's from man glabel(8):

EXAMPLES
The following example shows how to set up a label for disk ``da2'', cre-
ate a file system on it, and mount it:
glabel label -v usr /dev/da2
newfs /dev/label/usr
mount /dev/label/usr /usr
[...]
umount /usr
glabel stop usr
glabel unload

The next example shows how to set up a label for a UFS file system:
tunefs -L data /dev/da4s1a
mount /dev/ufs/data /mnt/data

Am I to understand that glabel is only for a new system? What's with the
newfs... I'm trying to set labels on an system that is already set up.
And, the glabel examle above is not for UFS file systems? Oh, that's for
tunefs?
So why are we even dealing with this glabel?

from manual:
# tunefs -L /home/ //dev/da3/
A label should now exist in /dev/ufs which may be added to /etc/fstab:
/dev/ufs/home /home ufs rw 2 2

Why? Is this necessary? and somewhere I saw tunefs -L volume
/dev/da0s1a or something like that. Does that mean that each partition
should be tunefsd? Maybe the guys who programmed this stuff understand;
I sure don't. I just want to be able to set the labels according to what
they say can be done... so shy not have a clear and concise explanation?

Do people who write this stuff ever read it? Tell me that its clear and
simple and to the point... so far, I have been running back and forth
between half a dozen web pages trying to understand what is going
on... and doing things through a dense fog does not produce creative
results!
___
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

ok, in short since i didn't see anyone answer this directly, your
question of tunefs vs glabel:

tunefs is for UFS: it labels a UFS filesystem, no matter the device,
ie: ad or da. tunefs is part of the filesystem utilities for UFS.
good example, can't tunefs -L SWAP /dev/ad0s1b if it is a swap. you
can glabel it.

glabel is for labeling a device itself. you can glabel an ntfs
filesystem or ext2, whatever.

Thanks for that, Michael.
But can you explain what this means? It just is not clear for me.
# tu;nefs -L home /dev/da3
This puts a label on that disk? So now it can be referred to as home?
da3 = home ?

I'll try to delve into the man glabel further... but things still look
murky.

tunefs -L HOME /dev/da3 will put the label /dev/ufs/HOME pointing to
/dev/da3 . da3=home. exactly correct.
the main idea behind that is that you can move the device around, etc.
since fstab is looking in /dev/ufs/NAMES_OF_DISKS/PARTITIONS instead of
/dev/da[0-9] type setup. you can move it to any controller and still boot(if
you have the driver for the controller).

the glabel command can label ANY disk/slice/partition. its great when you
get away form the old mbr setup and switch to gpt. gpt lets you have an
arbitrary number of partitions. and when you think about it, names are so
much better than numbers anyway, its why we use DNS on networks. imagine
having to remember every ip you have to use.

peace

___
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

arbitrary number of partitions

erm 128 IIRC, so practically yes
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread PJ

Bob Hall wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 05:36:43PM -0400, PJ wrote:
   
 Bob Hall wrote:
 
 On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 02:34:40AM +, Mark wrote:
   
   
 Actually, this has got very little to do with being a native English
 speaker or not. It's ere a matter of intonation (which, in writing, can
 only be conveyed to a certain degree, of course). 'Should' can certainly
 mean Don't try that. As in:

 Will the ice hold me?
 Well, technically it should.

 (Meaning: it probably will, but I'm not overly confident.)
 
 
 Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
 common in English to shorten
 Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.
   
   
 Absolutely not! There is nothing to suggest either statement above. If
 one says it should work, it can mean (of course, it changes within
 different contexts) that all is ok and normal conditions (whatever they
 may be) will allow things to function correctly. There is certainly no
 implication about confidence... where do you get that? 
 

 From common English usage. Specifically, where? Australia, England, Russia, 
 France, USA, Canada... Again, that is your personal interpretation and 
 certainly not common English usage. Or better yet, try common sense. Or, 
 better yet, you *should* go back to school.
   

___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread PJ

Manolis Kiagias wrote:
 PJ wrote:
   
 Manolis Kiagias wrote:
   
 
 PJ wrote:
   
 
   
 Manolis, my state of mind is quite clear... and I'm coping with
 everything quite allright... I'm not about to get mad at anyone or
 anything...
 but tell me, honestly, when you see the stuff I have described above?
 Woldn't that confuse anyone in their right mind?

   
 
   
 
 I am sorry, but there is something here, either some mistake on your
 part or some other weird problem on your system I can not think of.

 I don't seem to remember glabel ever failing to store metadata, unless
 1) The device is non-existing 2) The device is mounted.
 As a matter of fact, I did the glabel stuff on a machine a few hours
 ago. This was already fully installed, I rebooted single user and was
 done in less than 2 minutes.
 And yes, if you get a metadata error, it means nothing was done so you
 are *not* to go and change fstab!

 Could you  please send us /etc/fstab and the results of ls /dev/ad*
   
 
   
 Here are the outputs:

 fstab:
 # DeviceMountpointFStypeOptionsDumpPass#
 /dev/ad12s1bnoneswapsw00
 /dev/ad12s1a/ufsrw11
 /dev/ad12s1h/backupsufsrw22
 /dev/ad12s1g/homeufsrw22
 /dev/ad12s1d/tmpufsrw22
 /dev/ad12s1f/usrufsrw22
 /dev/ad12s1e/varufsrw22
 /dev/acd0/cdromcd9660ro,noauto00
 linproc  /usr/compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0

 df:
 Filesystem   1K-blocksUsedAvail Capacity  Mounted on
 /dev/ad12s1a   2026030  319112  154483617%/
 devfs1   10   100%/dev
 /dev/ad12s1h  50777034   4 46714868 0%/backups
 /dev/ad12s1g  50777034 6276538 4043833413%/home
 /dev/ad12s1d   4058062  36  3733382 0%/tmp
 /dev/ad12s1f  50777034 5729324 4098554812%/usr
 /dev/ad12s1e   2026030  176070  1687878 9%/var
 linprocfs4   40   100%/usr/compat/linux/proc

 # ls /dev/ad*
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0,  97 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad0
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 103 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad0s1
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 101 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 106 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 121 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1a
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 122 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1b
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 123 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1c
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 124 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1d
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 125 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1e
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 126 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1f
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 127 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1g
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 102 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 107 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 128 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1a
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 129 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1b
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 130 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1c
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 131 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1d
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 132 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1e
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 133 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1f
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 134 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1g
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 135 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1h
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0,  99 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 104 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 108 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1a
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 109 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1b
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 110 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1c
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 111 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1d
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 112 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1e
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 113 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1f
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 114 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1g
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 100 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 105 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 115 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1a
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 116 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1b
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 117 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1c
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 118 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1d
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 119 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1e
 crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 120 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1f

 Sorry, but I don't see what this is going to tell you... ad0 is XP; ad10
 is minimal FreeBSD 7.2; ad12 is 7.2 on 500gb; ad4 is 7.2 on 80gb; and
 ad6 is messed up FBSD I'm cheking  setting up with clone of ad12
 (dump/restore)
 Now I will try the glabel again...
 # shutdown now
 # glabel label rootfs /dev/ad12s1a
 glabel: Can't

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread Manolis Kiagias

PJ wrote:

(trimmed down)

 Is entirely possible that I mucked up somewhere and did not do the
 shutdown -r quite right... anyway, it is working fine now.
 I still have some minor questions, though...
 Can glabel be done on a dormant file system and then boot that file
 system to change the fstab? 

You mean glabel the file system but still leave it as a normal device
name in fstab?
Sure, no problem there. The file system can either be mounted using it's
/dev/adXX (or /dev/daXX)
device name, it's label, or even the ufsid (assuming it is a UFS
filesystem, see the section below the glabel example)
So basically you can reboot after creating the label without changing
the fstab if you wish and change it later when you are certain that
glabel worked as you expected.

 I would think that that would be about the
 same things ad doing it from a mounted system in SUM.
 Then, the last question... where does tunefs really come in? .. I ask
   

As others have said (and as explained in Handbook section 19.6.1) tunefs
can only create labels for UFS filesystems. Glabel on the other hand is
not filesystem specific, you can label anything (for example, you have
already labeled the swap space which clearly is not a file system). That
makes glabel more suitable IMHO when the purpose is to completely
replace the device names in fstab.

So in short:

- If you wish to create permanent labels for anything including swap
space and 'alien' filesystems as well as UFS, use 'glabel label'
- If you wish to create temporary labels for anything including swap
space and 'alien' filesystems as well as UFS, use 'glabel create' (I
doubt this is very useful, but it is an option)
- If you wish to create permanent labels for UFS filesystems *only* you
have the option of using tunefs.
- If you do not wish to create labels yourself and you are only
interested in mounting UFS filesystems without using the device names,
you can use the ufsid labels that are created automatically when the
filesystem is first created.

From all the solutions, the only  one that covers both UFS and the swap
space and is permanent is the 'glabel label' command (hence the example
in the Handbook)

I hope this clears it up :)
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread PJ

Ian Smith wrote:
 PJ,

 having (in this case at least) the luxury of reading freebsd-questions 
 as a digest, I'm going to quote a few of your extracts from several 
 messages, largely without surounding context, as it's all incredibly 
 repetitive, masively overquoted and mostly just grasping for ambiguity 
 as Warren Block so eloquently put it.

   To be as precise as possible, it means normally it should work so go
   ahead; then the question is - what do you mean by normally.
   In our case above, the instructions were to do the operation with the
   disk not in use and the os in SUM. That's very clear. Now, I f they
   wanted to point out a bug, the bug means that there is an anomaly under
   certain circumstances - and in this case there really is no bug as it is
   very clear as to how the instructions should be used. If they consider
   the operation under a live files system a bug, then they should just
   make a warning and say something along the lines of do not use on live
   system as that may destroy data or something to that effect.

 I think you're only being so obtuse about this because you haven't had 
 much experience reading man pages, and seem to expect them to conform to 
 some sort of English Literary standards that are entirely inapplicable.

   Just a note: I find it strange that nobody looked into the problem of
   the confusion... I thought I had pointed out where the co;nfusion
   arises... and no one seems to have either understood the inconsistencies
   or bothere to read the explanation... oh well... let's keep on
   blundering away... ;-)

 Must we?  The confusion, and the seems-like-a-hundred messages it's now 
 spawned, is all yours.  Many have tried relentlessly and unsuccessfully 
 to explain to you what just about everyone else has had no difficulty in 
 understanding, because they don't try applying linguistic contortions to 
 a simple statement by its (entirely English-speaking) authors.

  M. McKusick, W. Joy, S. Leffler, and R. Fabry, A Fast File System for
  UNIX, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2, 3, pp 181-197, August
  1984, (reprinted in the BSD System Manager's Manual, SMM:5).

 BUGS
  This utility should work on active file systems.

  You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish.

 If you want to see the _fascinating_ history of the tunefs(8) man page:
   http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/tunefs/tunefs.8

 First go right down the bottom, Rev 1.1, and choose 'annotated' view .. 
 you'll see the original text committed by Rodney Grimes.  If you don't 
 know who Marshall McKusick, Bill Joy, Sam Leffler and Robert Fabry are, 
 do some googling, or start at http://www.mckusick.com/articles.html

 Rev 1.4 adds an interesting warning .. perhaps some pedant had suggested 
 that a little humour was inappropriate :)  At some later point, mckusick 
 corrected the spelling of 'Daemon', and later ru@ changed can't to 
 cannot (FFS!).  This is a very carefully considered BUGS section, with 
 over 15 years' of history.  Mess with it at your peril :)

   What in the world is RFC 2119? (that's a rhetorical question) I
   prefer to stick to orinary dictionaries, like Oxford, Collins, Webster...
   then again, my college university studies were in English lit... but I'm
   afraid I have have neglected that and have been somewhat dragged down to
   the level of the plebes in the hope they may catch some of my
   meanings... :-D

 You need to use the right terms in the appropriate context, and it's 
 best to try avoiding condescension when dealing with people who may not 
 have attained your literary qualifications, but who clearly know a hell 
 of a lot more about this subject than you do.

 If you don't know about RFCs you'll get lost with lots of UNIX (and 
 other computer system) references.  Google is your (and our!) friend.

I understand that I'm confused :)

 Ok.

Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
common in English to shorten
 Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.
  
   Absolutely not! There is nothing to suggest either statement above. If
   one says it should work, it can mean (of course, it changes within
   different contexts) that all is ok and normal conditions (whatever they
   may be) will allow things to function correctly. There is certainly no
   implication about confidence... where do you get that? It can mean ver
   confident just as well. And dropping a sentence is a very presumptuous
   assumption. but is doesn't is a specific condition... and there can me
   innumerable conditions.

 Semantic obfuscation and failure to understand usage of 'BUGS' sections.  
 Try reading a whole lot more manpages to get their drift, eg what would 
 you make of BUGS: bound to be some without knowing the wisdom therein?

   In the end, it's up to the author to clarify... I don't understand what
   he's trying to do as on my stem his instructions/example just do not

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-18 Thread Jon Radel


PJ wrote:



It's owrthless to read your entire comment here as everyone is
forgetting two things, here...
1. COMMON SENSE
2. NOT EVERYONE WHO READS MANUALS OR MAN PAGES IS NECESSARILY LIMITED TO
THE NARROW MINDBEND OF THE INITIATED.


There are those who think those who bitch because they've not taken the 
time to understand terms of art (to borrow language from yet another 
of the many, many sub-varieties of English) that have been widely used 
in the community for decades, and seem to feel that their resulting 
confusion is obviously somebody else's fault and duty to fix, lack 
sense, common or otherwise.  On this, I suspect we'll just have to 
disagree.  (Though I will point out that in the above passage you've 
just told us that you admit to having forgotten common sense. 
Ordinarily I wouldn't stoop this low, but you've just spent much time 
telling us how much clearer, better, and comprehensible your brand of 
English is.))


Personally, I welcomed Ian's comments, as I believe he was the first to 
point out explicitly that language such as this is contextual, 
long-standing in the community in which it is used, and really not that 
confusing once you pay attention.  (My apologies to anyone else who 
discussed this earlier; I found it difficult to read every message in 
this thread.)


BTW, it's hard for me, personally, to take seriously anyone who quotes 
in full, with no trimming, something which he dismisses as worthless to 
read.


--

--Jon Radel
j...@radel.com


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread jhell



On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:54, nealhogan@ wrote:

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 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.
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. ;-)


since I'm in the mood
PJ, you certainly sound like a scholar . . . you speak many
languages and have a strict translation policy, yet (given those two
points) it doesn't follow you have any idea how to use any of those
languages.

You prefer drama and at some point we're going to realize that there
is no wolf? KISS! (google for translation).



Dear Neal,

Stop being a pathetic reply artist. Hit [Delete] next time or learn how 
to lead-in your replies so everyone knows who your replying to. He actually 
has a real point its just not caught with all the unneeded attention your 
bring to hist statement about language.


Little over dramatic and pathetic give it up its email

PS:
echo \
'[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq'|dc

Your best friend.

--

 ;; dataix.net!jhell 2048R/89D8547E 2009-09-30
 ;; BSD since FreeBSD 4.2Linux since Slackware 2.1
 ;; 85EF E26B 07BB 3777 76BE  B12A 9057 8789 89D8 547E

___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread Roman Neuhauser

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

Dunno, maybe it's because E is my SL, but I fail to see the problem
here.  The meaning is clearly (SECTION BUGS, ffs) The friggin program
should have a feature it's currently lacking.

That's not to say I haven't had my share of gripes with man pages,
it's just that if you ignore the man page structure and associated
meaning, you're in for trouble.  Just like with any message.

--
roman
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

Polytropon wrote:
 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:29:04 -0400, PJ af.gour...@videotron.ca wrote:
   
 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.
 

 As English is not my native language, I *now* understand the
 meaning of it should; in this case, it seems to mean something
 like basically, it is supposed to, but in this case, it does
 not, regarding the desired action.
   
To be as precise as possible, it means normally it should work so go
ahead; then the question is - what do you mean by normally.
In our case above, the instructions were to do the operation with the
disk not in use and the os in SUM. That's very clear. Now, I f they
wanted to point out a bug, the bug means that there is an anomaly under
certain circumstances - and in this case there really is no bug as it is
very clear as to how the instructions should be used. If they consider
the operation under a live files system a bug, then they should just
make a warning and say something along the lines of do not use on live
system as that may destroy data or something to that effect.



   
 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.
 

 It's still possible that non-native speakers misunderstand.
   
Of course... but what you need is cooperation between the two - and both
should have some understanding of the particular area of expertise they
are dealing with.

Just a note: I find it strange that nobody looked into the problem of
the confusion... I thought I had pointed out where the co;nfusion
arises... and no one seems to have either understood the inconsistencies
or bothere to read the explanation... oh well... let's keep on
blundering away... ;-)
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

Mark wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org 
 [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of PJ
 Sent: zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 3:50
 To: Steve Bertrand
 Cc: Polytropon; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
 Subject: Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

 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.
 :-)

 Actually, this has got very little to do with being a native English
 speaker or not. It's ere a matter of intonation (which, in writing, can
 only be conveyed to a certain degree, of course). 'Should' can certainly
 mean Don't try that. As in:

 Will the ice hold me?
 Well, technically it should.

 (Meaning: it probably will, but I'm not overly confident.)

 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

 The meaning of 'should' is not nearly as narrow as you suggest. Often it
 also denotes reservation (as in the above example). To illustrate once
 more:

 Can I run dump on an active file system?
 It *should* run on an active file system, provided (enumerations of
 conditions which would need to be met; like preferably no disk-activity
 when making the backup).

 (Meaning: it can be done, but it's ill-advised, really.) And clearly it
 does not mean should be executed, done, carried out, performed.

 Another one:

 Will he run for President?
 Well, he should be able to get enough votes.

 (Meaning: if everything goes as planned, he might succeed, but it's by no
 means guaranteed he'll actually get enough votes).

 So, given the right intonation and context, This utility should work on
 active file systems. can certainly be understood to mean one could
 technically do so, but that it's not recommended.

 - Mark

 ___
 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

I think you're trying to take the meaning of should a little too
far... to keep it simple, and without trying to intellectualize it, it
simply means (and this can change within certain contexts) normally, it
should work (in our context, here) but there is no implication of any
warnings or dangers ... the normally is implied, the rest you can do
with it as you wish, obviously at your rist... but even then the
interpretation goes too far. As I suggested to Polytropon, in this
particular case the instructions for the implementation of the procedure
are very clear: use on an inactive system or SUM... so where's the
bug... to suggest that it should work on an active system is confusing
- if the author thought it important that it wouldl not work on an
active system, perhaps he should have merely said do not use on an
active system... that would be consistent and very clear. ;-)
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

Warren Block wrote:
 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Bob Hall wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 07:27:42PM -0400, PJ wrote:
 BUGS
 This utility should work on active file systems.

 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.

 I understand it, but see ambiguity in the word should.  Easy enough
 to rewrite:

 BUGS
 This utility does not work on active file systems.

 Now here's my challenge to PJ: use send-pr(1) or the web PR interface
 at http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html to submit this as a doc bug
 report.

 That's how FreeBSD gets better, and how you help the next person in
 the same situation.

 -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA

As I mentioned earlier, I do not understand what the author really
intended, so I am out of place making any judgments. All I was saying is
that my understanding of all the instructions I found was and still is
confused... as I mentioned, changing this is between the author and
whoever translated, if that is the case. For me, I would still like to
hear from somone who could clear up the confusion... read my explanation
of what I found in themanuals and you will perhaps understand what is
confusing (tunefs and glabel appear to be stumbling over each other and
criss-crossing instructions.
From the way things are written, it would appear that one must do tunefs
before doing glabel and that they are interdependent. But tunefs says to
do tunefs /home /disk-slice yet glabel is dealing with partitions...
what does /home supposed to be a specific directory or a partition and
how does it relate to the disk? And then, how does it relate to glabel?

Manolis seems to have cleared things slightly on how to use glabel, but
strangely it did not work for me. I am about to try again and will sen
the fstab and ls disk prinouts as soon as I have another little problem
sorted out... shortly or tomorrow. Sorry.
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

Manolis Kiagias wrote:
 PJ wrote:
   
 Manolis, my state of mind is quite clear... and I'm coping with
 everything quite allright... I'm not about to get mad at anyone or
 anything...
 but tell me, honestly, when you see the stuff I have described above?
 Woldn't that confuse anyone in their right mind?

   
 

 I am sorry, but there is something here, either some mistake on your
 part or some other weird problem on your system I can not think of.

 I don't seem to remember glabel ever failing to store metadata, unless
 1) The device is non-existing 2) The device is mounted.
 As a matter of fact, I did the glabel stuff on a machine a few hours
 ago. This was already fully installed, I rebooted single user and was
 done in less than 2 minutes.
 And yes, if you get a metadata error, it means nothing was done so you
 are *not* to go and change fstab!

 Could you  please send us /etc/fstab and the results of ls /dev/ad*
   
Here are the outputs:

fstab:
# DeviceMountpointFStypeOptionsDumpPass#
/dev/ad12s1bnoneswapsw00
/dev/ad12s1a/ufsrw11
/dev/ad12s1h/backupsufsrw22
/dev/ad12s1g/homeufsrw22
/dev/ad12s1d/tmpufsrw22
/dev/ad12s1f/usrufsrw22
/dev/ad12s1e/varufsrw22
/dev/acd0/cdromcd9660ro,noauto00
linproc  /usr/compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0

df:
Filesystem   1K-blocksUsedAvail Capacity  Mounted on
/dev/ad12s1a   2026030  319112  154483617%/
devfs1   10   100%/dev
/dev/ad12s1h  50777034   4 46714868 0%/backups
/dev/ad12s1g  50777034 6276538 4043833413%/home
/dev/ad12s1d   4058062  36  3733382 0%/tmp
/dev/ad12s1f  50777034 5729324 4098554812%/usr
/dev/ad12s1e   2026030  176070  1687878 9%/var
linprocfs4   40   100%/usr/compat/linux/proc

# ls /dev/ad*
crw-r-  1 root  operator0,  97 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad0
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 103 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad0s1
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 101 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 106 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 121 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1a
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 122 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1b
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 123 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1c
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 124 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1d
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 125 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1e
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 126 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1f
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 127 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad10s1g
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 102 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 107 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 128 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1a
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 129 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1b
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 130 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1c
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 131 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1d
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 132 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1e
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 133 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1f
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 134 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1g
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 135 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad12s1h
crw-r-  1 root  operator0,  99 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 104 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 108 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1a
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 109 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1b
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 110 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1c
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 111 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1d
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 112 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1e
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 113 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1f
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 114 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad4s1g
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 100 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 105 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 115 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1a
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 116 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1b
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 117 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1c
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 118 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1d
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 119 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1e
crw-r-  1 root  operator0, 120 Oct 17 16:36 /dev/ad6s1f

Sorry, but I don't see what this is going to tell you... ad0 is XP; ad10
is minimal FreeBSD 7.2; ad12 is 7.2 on 500gb; ad4 is 7.2 on 80gb; and
ad6 is messed up FBSD I'm cheking  setting up with clone of ad12
(dump/restore)
Now I will try the glabel again...
# shutdown now
# glabel label rootfs /dev/ad12s1a
glabel: Can't store metadata on /dev/ad0s1a

manual: it is assumed that a single ATA disk is used, which is
currently recognized by the system as ad0. It is also assumed that the

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

Steve Bertrand wrote:
 PJ wrote:
   
 Steve Bertrand wrote:
 
 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
 
 
 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).
   
What in the world is RFC 2119? (that's a rhetorical question) I
prefer to stick to orinary dictionaries, like Oxford, Collins, Webster...
then again, my college university studies were in English lit... but I'm
afraid I have have neglected that and have been somewhat dragged down to
the level of the plebes in the hope they may catch some of my
meanings... :-D
 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?
   
YES! There are plenty of people who would be happy to help the guy get
the translation right... would you want someone to get a hold of a
weapon and then misuse it because the instructions are in sanskrit?
 Vous faire ce travail, mon ami? Je n'aime pas d'accord avec votre
 utilisation du mot doit.
   
You are definitely not a frog... ;-)
 ...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. 
   
Duh... that's not Dutch...
Nice try... your Frenchreminds me of my German... great pronunciation,
but the grammar is horrible  ;-)
Too many years ago I knew it well.
 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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

Bob Hall wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 02:34:40AM +, Mark wrote:
   
 Actually, this has got very little to do with being a native English
 speaker or not. It's ere a matter of intonation (which, in writing, can
 only be conveyed to a certain degree, of course). 'Should' can certainly
 mean Don't try that. As in:

 Will the ice hold me?
 Well, technically it should.

 (Meaning: it probably will, but I'm not overly confident.)
 

 Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
 common in English to shorten
   Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.
   
Absolutely not! There is nothing to suggest either statement above. If
one says it should work, it can mean (of course, it changes within
different contexts) that all is ok and normal conditions (whatever they
may be) will allow things to function correctly. There is certainly no
implication about confidence... where do you get that? It can mean ver
confident just as well. And dropping a sentence is a very presumptuous
assumption. but is doesn't is a specific condition... and there can me
innumerable conditions.
If you look at the immediate context of what we are dealing with here,
the author has clearly stated use in SUM and that implies an unmounted
system. If he considers using it on an active system as a bug, then he
should be clear about it and say do not use on an active system.

 to
   Yea, it should work.
 In order to catch the meaning, you have to be aware of context.

 Contrary to the OP's claim, this shows a pretty good grasp of English
 idiom. It's definitely not evidence that the man author is not a native
 speaker of English.

 On the other hand, it can be clarified so that the meaning is clear even
 without context. If the OP really believes that the present wording is a
 problem, other people have made suggestions on what to do about it.
   
In the end, it's up to the author to clarify... I don't understand what
he's trying to do as on my stem his instructions/example just do not
work anyway. :-(
 ___
 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

   

___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread Bob Hall

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 05:36:43PM -0400, PJ wrote:
 Bob Hall wrote:
  On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 02:34:40AM +, Mark wrote:

  Actually, this has got very little to do with being a native English
  speaker or not. It's ere a matter of intonation (which, in writing, can
  only be conveyed to a certain degree, of course). 'Should' can certainly
  mean Don't try that. As in:
 
  Will the ice hold me?
  Well, technically it should.
 
  (Meaning: it probably will, but I'm not overly confident.)
  
 
  Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
  common in English to shorten
  Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.

 Absolutely not! There is nothing to suggest either statement above. If
 one says it should work, it can mean (of course, it changes within
 different contexts) that all is ok and normal conditions (whatever they
 may be) will allow things to function correctly. There is certainly no
 implication about confidence... where do you get that? 

From common English usage.
___
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

Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must

2009-10-17 Thread PJ

michael wrote:
PJ wrote:
Why is it that the manual pages, as thorough as they may be, are very,
very confusing.
Perhaps I am being too wary, but I find that too many
instructions/examples are stumbling blocks to appreciation of the whole
system:
for instance, let's look at the instructions for changing disk labels
with glabel or is it tunefs ?
man glabel(8):

for UFS the file system label is set with
tunefs(8)
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=tunefssektion=8apropos=0manpath=FreeBSD+7.2-RELEASE.