On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:48:49PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > + <para><command>--with-drivers=ALL,x11</command>: here we add the > > Just FYI. The BLFS team jointly agreed some time ago that using "we" in > the book is ambiguous. Who is we? If your answer is "the BLFS Editing > team", then you are speaking for everyone and that is not the case. > Additionally, the BLFS Editing team doesn't add anything to the readers > commands, the reader is performing the commands, not us. Perhaps > better would be "This parameter adds the x11 output device ..." > > I realize that you are on the other side of the fence as the LFS book > does, thinking it adds a sense of closeness to the audience. However, > BLFS looked at "we" in a technical document as inappropriate because > "we" cannot be defined. It is really picking nits, so it is your call, > but I don't think you will find "we" in the book anywhere else (though > it very well could have snuck in since the book's last release. > OK. I must admit that I thought it was now acceptable in BLFS, but maybe we (that's me and my evil twin) just imagined it. I've seen various places in BLFS where the language seems excessively indirect (and I'm a person who is happy to use the passive voice - I liked reading Caesar in latin classes ;) and here I wanted to avoid the passive. Your suggestion looks good, I'll change the explanation.
ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
