I hate to bitch but bitch I must
steve at ibctech.ca
Sat Oct 17 00:10:11 UTC 2009
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.gourmet at videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> but from man tunefs:
>>>> 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.
More information about the freebsd-questions