On Tuesday 12 July 2011 04:27:18 Volker Armin Hemmann did opine
thusly:
> On Monday 11 July 2011 23:43:06 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Monday 11 July 2011 17:26:36 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> > > Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> > > > I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur',
On Monday 11 July 2011 23:43:06 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2011 17:26:36 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> > Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> > > I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept
> > > 'transportation'.
> >
> > It's way OT but what is w
On 07/11/2011 07:40 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:43:06 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>> It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation' to
>> everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It nearly always
>> means 'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:43:06 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation' to
> everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It nearly always
> means 'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is nearly always 'medicine'.
> I could go on all night
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:09:42 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > But an admitted pedantic response deserves a reply from the OED :P
>
> ...which is no more than an observer of trends. It offers precious
> little help in what one ought to do.
Isn't that how language develops, through trends? My po
On Monday 11 July 2011 22:01:02 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> But an admitted pedantic response deserves a reply from the OED :P
...which is no more than an observer of trends. It offers precious little
help in what one ought to do.
A few years ago our Queen uttered a solecism (well, it had to happen
On Monday 11 July 2011 17:26:36 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> > I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept
> > 'transportation'.
>
> It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
> If it is wrong, how would it be righ
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:18:16 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > From the OED:
> >
> > reoccur: occur again or habitually
>
> I don't regard myself bound by others' ability to find earlier examples
> of the same mistake. We have 'occur', 'incur', 'concur' and 'recur'. It
> is rarely a good idea t
On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
>
>> I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept
>> 'transportation'.
>
> It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
> If it is wrong, how would it be right?
> I
Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept
> 'transportation'.
It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
If it is wrong, how would it be right?
I'm not a native speaker so I might be blind to see the error.
On Monday 11 July 2011 10:10:41 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> From the OED:
>
> reoccur: occur again or habitually
I don't regard myself bound by others' ability to find earlier examples of
the same mistake. We have 'occur', 'incur', 'concur' and 'recur'. It is
rarely a good idea to compound prefixes
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:26:37 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > it my get rid of the problem temporarily but you still have no idea of
> > what the problem was or what to do should it reoccur.
>
> s/reoccur/recur/
>
> Speaking as one old pedant to another...
From the OED:
reoccur: occur again
On Sunday 10 July 2011 19:38:34 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> it my get rid of the problem temporarily but you still have no idea of
> what the problem was or what to do should it reoccur.
s/reoccur/recur/
Speaking as one old pedant to another...
--
Rgds
Peter
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:31:45 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> > I wasn't suggesting that. But when the main reason for sticking with
> > the
> > older option is that you have a working system with data in it, the
> > loss
> > of both of those is a good time to investigate the newer
> > alternative.
On Saturday, July 9 at 12:22 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said:
> I wasn't suggesting that. But when the main reason for sticking with
> the
> older option is that you have a working system with data in it, the
> loss
> of both of those is a good time to investigate the newer alternative.
I see. I g
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:22:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> > Fair enough, except this thread is about encfs not working :(
>
> Unfortunately. But that's not to say "encfs doesn't work". When I have
> a problem with a bash script, I don't just up and switch to zsh :P
I wasn't suggesting that
On Saturday, July 9 at 08:39 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said:
> Fair enough, except this thread is about encfs not working :(
Unfortunately. But that's not to say "encfs doesn't work". When I have
a problem with a bash script, I don't just up and switch to zsh :P
(although I hear people do such t
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:40:58 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> > Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> > reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> > in-kernel ecryptfs these days?
>
> Admittedly there isn't much difference, so if what you
On Friday, July 8 at 22:50 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said:
> Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> in-kernel ecryptfs these days?
Admittedly there isn't much difference, so if what you are using
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> Having said that:
> One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library
> which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like. It also
> depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my
>
On Friday, July 8 at 11:55 (-0500), Harry Putnam said:
[..]
> Somehow I managed to really hurt the installation ... here is what I
> remember having done:
>
> Some how I got mixed up when running as root, and attempted to mount a
> users encfs directory. (Its a single user machine so it my use
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> Maybe encfs keeps data somewhere that I can delete and make this go
> away? But a `qlist encfs', listing all that got installed doesn't show
> anything like that.
I've never used encfs, but maybe strace will show you if it's
accessing file
Sorry about the OT, I couldn't raise a stir on the encfs group in
several days... I'm hoping someone here is experienced with encfs.
Actually I'm somewhat experienced with it myself. I've been keeping
encfs directory for yrs now for special stuff.
Somehow I managed to really hurt the installatio
23 matches
Mail list logo
