From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 6 15:39:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9227C16A401 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:39:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: from gizmo.acns.msu.edu (gizmo.acns.msu.edu [35.8.1.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C1613C484 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:39:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: from gizmo.acns.msu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.acns.msu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l36FbwCC098730; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:37:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: (from jerrymc@localhost) by gizmo.acns.msu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l36FbwJx098729; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:37:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jerrymc) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:37:58 -0400 From: Jerry McAllister To: Alex Zbyslaw Message-ID: <20070406153758.GA98633@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> References: <7d4f41f50704050142v9c73a17tb1812f218ea4416@mail.gmail.com> <4615030B.5040809@daleco.biz> <20070405191526.GA94631@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <46162A14.8030307@dial.pipex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46162A14.8030307@dial.pipex.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Jerry McAllister , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should sudo be used? 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:39:33 -0000 On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:08:04PM +0100, Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > Jerry McAllister wrote: > > >I noticed one grammatical thing of question. In the first paragraph > >under "Use ssh instead of Telnet or rsh/rlogin" it says > > > > "they should never be used to administrate a machine over a network," > > > >I think the word should be 'administer' instead of 'administrate' > >unless this is some sort of British thing. I know, picky picky, but > >it just stood out to me as I was reading. > > > > > 10 years ago you might have been correct. An old dictionary on the > shelf does not list "administrate". However both modern dictionaries I > tried listed it with the same meaning as administer in it's "oversee" sense. > > On-line, try, for example, WordNet http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (web > interface: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). I can find over a > dozen references with a google for "administrate meaning". > > I can't find any etymology for this specific (and I would agree, in some > sense wrong) form however it is clearly in common usage. > > Language evolves, not always in ways that everyone likes. Administer is > a perfectly good word, and there's no need for "administrate" to exist. > But language skills being what they are, someone looks at > "administration" and it's quite understandable how they get to a verb > "administrate". C.f compensation, for example. Geeez, the language is falling apart. I was afraid of that. Why did I ever take 8th grade English and have to learn about verb infinitives when I could have been trying to spy on girls gymn class... ////jerry > > --Alex >