On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 11:56:58PM -0700, Evan Silberman wrote:
> Jason McIntyre <j...@kerhand.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 07:43:50AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:26:57AM -0700, Evan Silberman wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know our stance on Unix vs Un*x. I'll leave this to some
> > > native speaker, like jmc@ who knows all about commas (and much more)
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > -Otto
> > >
> >
> > hi.
> >
> > i'm fairly sure Un*x is meant to denote the various flavours of unix,
> > and is probably pretty widespread in our docs. however i haven;t checked
> > that. i don;t really see a reason to change it unless we've somehow
> > decided that it doesn;t make sense and we make such changes wholesale.
>
> I think it makes sense to write "Unix-like" instead of "Un*x-like" or
> "UN*X-like" wherever it appears in the general case; it is more legible
> to lay readers and conveys basically the same information. The homepage
> reads "UNIX-like". (I also would propose that the all-caps styling is at
> best something of a throwback and "Unix" should be preferred unless the
> developers are extremely fond of the caps, but that's neither here nor
> there.)
>
you might be right about Unix-like. i was thinking of pure un*x->unix.
but note that we have an awful lot of "UNIX" in our docs.
i guess i'm not the person to answer this either.
> > > > Index: m4.common
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > RCS file: /cvs/src/distrib/notes/m4.common,v
> > > > retrieving revision 1.127
> > > > diff -u -p -r1.127 m4.common
> > > > --- m4.common 23 Aug 2017 02:59:45 -0000 1.127
> > > > +++ m4.common 8 Jul 2019 17:24:49 -0000
> > > > @@ -284,8 +284,8 @@ dnl Describes the boot of the ramdisk.
> > > > dnl Describes the serial terminal setup.
> > > > define({:-OpenBSDInstallPart3-:},
> > > > {:- Once the kernel has loaded, you will be presented with the
> > > > - OpenBSD kernel boot messages which contain information about
> > > > - the hardware that was detected and supported by OpenBSD.
> > > > + OpenBSD kernel boot messages, which contain information about
> > > > + detected and supported hardware.
> > > >
> >
> > well this is just saying one thing another way, isn;t it? i don;t see
> > the point. oh, but the comma before "which" is correct.
>
> Came to this line to add the comma, rephrased what came after mostly due
> to the needless echoing of "OpenBSD".
>
i don;t see it as an improvement, to be honest. though i agree with the
comma.
> >
> > > > dnl dot.profile
> > > > After the kernel is done initializing, you will be asked whether
> > > > @@ -327,9 +327,9 @@ dnl install.sub (install) hostname
> > > > dnl install.sub (install) donetconfig
> > > > You will now be given an opportunity to configure the network.
> > > > The network configuration you enter (if any) can then be used to
> > > > - do the install from another system using HTTP, and will also be
> > > > - the configuration used by the system after the installation is
> > > > - complete.
> > > > + obtain installation sets from another system using HTTP, and
> > > > + will also be the configuration used by the system after the
> > > > + installation is complete.
> > > >
> >
> > again, what was wrong with the text that's there? if anything, i'd be
> > tempted to remove "do the". but i don;t have an issue with what's there
> > now.
>
> "do the install" read imprecisely to me (do how?); I rewrote to match my
http
> understanding of what activity is actually done over HTTP when the
> network is configured.
>
> >
> > > > dnl XXX add a MDVLAN feature and document vlan setup
> > > > The install program will give you a list of network interfaces
> > > > you
> > > > @@ -409,10 +409,10 @@ dnl install.sub (install) user_setup()
> > > > with a lowercase letter. If the login name matches this
> > > > criteria, and doesn't conflict with any of the administrative
> > > > user accounts (such as `root', `daemon' or `ftp'), you
> > > > - will be prompted with the users descriptive name, as well
> > > > - as its password, twice.
> > > > + will be prompted for the user's descriptive name, then twice
> > > > + for its password.
> >
> > user->user's makes sense
> > the rewording doesn;t
>
> "prompted with the user's descriptive name" is not right; the prompt
> _asks for_ this name. The appendix ", twice" on the original sentence
"prompt with" is not incorrect
> reads like you might be prompted for each piece of information (long
> name, password) twice, and since I was here making other fixes I
> rephrased.
>
yes, i see that ambiguity now. but it's not one that is going to catch
anyone out, and i'd argue that your sentence structure is more
complicated.
> >
> > > >
> > > > - As for the root password earlier, the install program will only
> > > > + As with the root password earlier, the install program will only
> >
> > what is wrong with the current text?
>
> "As for X" is (to me) an idiomatic phrase suggesting "Turning to the
> matter of X", which is wrong here; the matter we are turning to is the
> user password. "As with X" avoids this idiom.
>
"as for x" is not wrong either. you would just be changing the author's
(correct) wording for one that you personally prefer.
jmc
> [points of agreement snipped]
>
> > ok. so if i didn't comment on a change, i didn;t see any issue.
> > if it's a rewording of an already ok text, i don;t see the point.
> > i don;t see the point of Un*x->Unix, but some of our more, er,
> > experienced, developers may want to chip in.
> >
> > jmc
>
> Thanks!
>
> Evan Silberman
>
