From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 17 00:10:11 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B8B1065694 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:10:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@ibctech.ca) Received: from smtp.ibctech.ca (v6.ibctech.ca [IPv6:2607:f118::b6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC6238FC0C for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 88915 invoked by uid 89); 17 Oct 2009 00:10:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?IPv6:2607:f118::5?) (steve@ibctech.ca@2607:f118::5) by 2607:f118::b6 with ESMTPA; 17 Oct 2009 00:10:48 -0000 Message-ID: <4AD90B7A.9070408@ibctech.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:10:34 -0400 From: Steve Bertrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Hall , PJ , Polytropon , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" References: <4AD8EB8F.9010900@videotron.ca> <20091017010758.088b8b8c.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AD9016E.20302@videotron.ca> <20091017000439.GA25910@stainmore> In-Reply-To: <20091017000439.GA25910@stainmore> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:10:11 -0000 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 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