Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:10:04 -0700 (PDT) From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/44074: ln(1) manual clarifications [patch] Message-ID: <200210151710.g9FHA4Kn073456@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/44074; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen)
To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: docs/44074: ln(1) manual clarifications [patch]
Date: 15 Oct 2002 10:10:49 -0700
Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes:
> No contest to your other arguments, but this one seems a matter of
> preference to me; most of my acquaintances, as well as I, use 'symbolic
> link' almost exclusively, usually shortening it to 'symlink' in informal
> conversations.
The power of Wishful Thinking, it seems. And I'd forgotten about the
shorter symlink form until after I'd made my arguments and most changes
and then noticed symlink(7) in "See Also". Groups.google.com shows:
*BSD* *UNIX* *LINUX*
soft link 110 1030 2240
symbolic link 535 7790 19300
symlink 1070 8480 31300
Not even close. I'm shocked, but there it is.
I still think the change would improve the manual and the jargon, but
I'll respect the tradition (as if I had a choice) and back it out (after
waiting for comments on other things).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210151710.g9FHA4Kn073456>