Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-25,: Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107

# Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107

Terry L Ridder (terrylr@tbcnet.com)
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:09:58 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: kswapd's priority"
- Previous message: David Luyer: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Mares: "Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Next in thread: Raj Dutt: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"

Anders Melchiorsen wrote:
>
> Terry L Ridder <terrylr@tbcnet.com> writes:
>
> > In closing are your 'diff' files available on the Internet somewhere so
> > that those of us so inclined may 'reverse' your patches?
> >
> > A better solution would be to back all these 'spelling and grammar'
> > patches out
> > of the official Linux development kernel.
>
> Surely everyone must use the same standard or automatic parsing will
> get extremely hard? Naturally, this goes for stuff in /proc/, not
> linux/Documentation/
>
> --
> Regards, Anders <URL:http://www.kampsax.dtu.dk/~and/>

As my daughter stated, if a standard "has" to be applied let it be
Standard British English.

Having been "blasted" this evening by several clients, who feel
that the wholesale spell and grammar changes were capricious and
wondering why we are more concerned with spelling and grammar then
ensuring that nothing to broken by those fixes. If the only way I can
salvage the clients and their use of Linux is by backing out the
spelling and grammar fixes that is exactly what I am going to do.

I agree with the clients in one respect, why should they put their
time and money into supporting Linux, using Linux, and writing
applications for Linux, when some unknown person in some unknown
location has taken it upon themself to be the Spelling and Grammar
Checker making capricious changes with total disregard for what
those changes break.

I do not have an answer for them yet and I may never have an answer.

One client has been working on porting internal applications to Linux.
The goal was to give System Engineers who are in the field the tools
they need on laptops running Linux. Please notice I did use the past
tense 'was' instead of 'is' because I feel that this client has an
extremely bad taste about Linux from this incident.

To break code because someone did not like the way cpu & fpu were
capitalized is lunacy.

To defend the pural spelling of BIOS based on the fact it stands for
"Basic Input/Output System" therefore since the pural of 'System' is
"Systems"
; therefore the plural of BIOS is now BIOSs is shear lunacy.

The nice things about standards is that there are some many of them. ;-)

    --
    Terry L. Ridder
    Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
    "We do not write software, we compose it."

     When the toast is burnt
     and all the milk has turned
     and Captain Crunch is waving farewell
     when the Big One finds you
     may this song remind you that they
     don't serve breakfast in hell
     ==Breakfast==Newsboys

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: kswapd's priority"
- Previous message: David Luyer: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Mares: "Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Next in thread: Raj Dutt: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"