I hate to bitch but bitch I must

Steve Bertrand steve at ibctech.ca
Sat Oct 17 01:42:39 UTC 2009

PJ wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> PJ wrote:
>>> Polytropon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:54:23 -0400, PJ <af.gourmet at 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).
>> 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?

Vous faire ce travail, mon ami? Je n'aime pas d'accord avec votre
utilisation du mot doit.

...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.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list