On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:02:11AM +0000, the unit calling itself Stuart
Henderson wrote:
> On 2005/11/18 17:53:45, J Moore wrote:
> > No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you?
> > What part of the definition of the word "by" to you not understand?
> >
> > Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself
> > in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone
> > said to you, "adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg."
>
> 'adjusting' is a good choice, since a search on list archives using that
> as a keyword will find plenty of explanation...
>
> ntpd(8) *may* benefit from a few explanatory words, although that's
> debatable, since adjtime(2) is referenced and explains things well enough.
I agree that it's easy enough to do a search, and discover what ntpd
is actually doing. That was actually accomplished within the first 2-3
responses to my OP - that was the easy part :) I now understand what
the author *intended* in the log message.
In fact, I worry I shall never forget this lesson - to the point that I
may begin doubting others when they make simple and unambiguous
statements. For example:
Wife: Wash the car.
Me: Uh, do you mean the *entire* car, or just the front bumper?
Broker: This year's premium is increasing by $1,000.
Me: Uh, do you mean it's going up by $1 this year, and each year
thereafter until the 1000th year?
Doctor: You're 12 pounds overweight.
Me: Uh, do you mean as of today, or sometime before I die?
Guard: Leave the building
Me: Uh, do you mean take one step toward the door, and wait for further
instructions, or do you mean go to the front door, and exit?
Discovering the intended meaning of the ntpd log message was easy
enough. The point that seems to be causing most of the name-calling and
controversy is this:
If a message or instruction is ambiguous or vague or contains unfamiliar
words or concepts, then I would expect to have to do a little research
to reach an understanding of its meaning. However if a statement is
clear and concise, and contains no new words or concepts then I tend to
take it at face value, and I don't do any research. I don't think I am
alone in this practice (although...).
There also seem to be quite a few (several of them have written me
off-list) who maintain that the phrase in the log message is either:
a) a clear and correct description of ntpd's adjustment, or
b) ambiguous or fuzzy enough to warrant research to find out what it
really means.
I maintain that the message "adjusting clock by XXs" is neither of the
above.
I'll also say that I don't consider myself to be an authority on the
English language (I don't think you have to be to divine the meaning of
the phrase in question).
But since there seems to be no end to the controversy, insults and
name-calling in this forum, and I'm getting really tired of the
discussion, I propose to settle the matter as follows:
1. I will place a cashier's check in the amount of $2,000 in escrow with
a trusted third party TBD; I will call this the "OpenBSD Good Grammar
Prize". The Prize will in effect be my wager that the subject ntpd log
message is "clearly inaccurate".
2. Anyone who wishes to wager to the contrary may likewise place a
cashier's check in the amount of $2,000 (US) with the same trusted third
party.
3. Final judgement as to the meaning of the ntpd log message will be
vested with a panel of judges. Qualifications and selection criteria for
the judges is TBD, but all judges will be drawn from the faculty of the
English department at an accredited university in the US.
4. Distribution of the wagers will be made following the judge's final
decision. Distribution will be as follows:
a) If the judges agree with my interpretation, my $2,000 check is
returned to me. The other wager's $2,000 is donated to the OpenBSD
project on the condition that the log message be changed to TBD. (That's
why it's called "The OpenBSD Good Grammar Prize"). If the OpenBSD team
declines to make the change, then the other wager's $2,000 will be
donated to the Free Software Foundation.
b) If the judges disagree with my interpretation, my $2,000 check will
be sent to either the other wager, the OpenBSD project, or any other
organization that he designates. The other wager's check will be
returned to him.
In any case, the best I can do is break even. The other wager can
capture the cash for himself, donate it to OpenBSD, donate it to the
American Literacy Council, or whatever...
5. The judges will need some written guidance on how to conduct their
evaluation. Whoever wishes to wager should also submit their proposed
criteria. I've drafted some instructions to the judges below that can be
used as a point of departure.
So let's get to it, ladies and gentlemen... are there any players?
Draft Instructions to Panel of Judges:
Once impaneled, each of the judges will be instructed that their mission
is to evaluate a simple phrase for meaning and clarity. They will be
further advised that the phrase posed to them is not a "trick" phrase
designed to confuse the reader, nor is it deliberately worded to be
confusing. Their charter is simply to evaluate the meaning of the phrase
as an element of a man-machine computer interface.
The panel will be presented with the following statements to
support their evaluation:
a. ntpd is an automated process to maintain the correct time on a
computer. It accomplishes this by making adjustments to the
computer's clock. ntpd communicates its activities to the computer
operator by messages that are logged to a file.
b. Upon reviewing the log file, the computer administrator encountered
the following message from ntpd:
ntpd is adjusting time by 120 seconds
c. QUESTION: If the time immediately prior to the log entry above was
12:00:00, what is the time immediately after the log message (to
the nearest second)?
i) 12:02:00
ii) somewhere between 12:00:00 and 12:00:01
