[openbeos] Re: Spelling #2

Hi,
Thanks to everyone for the input. I have fixed the typos and made some changes to the wording along the lines of the suggestions made. 

Cheers,

Koki

Ryan Leavengood wrote:

Karl vom Dorff wrote:

On: http://haiku-os.org/about

Under 'Why Haiku' I'm pretty sure the idiom is 'means to an end':

'As a tool, software is a mean to an end, and not an end in itself.'


Yes I agree. This was probably just a typo.


Under 'Who we are'

'Haiku is mostly developed by volunteers'

Would be fine, but sounds more proper switching 'developed mostly'.
I agree with this change too. It is subtle but to me it sounds better as 'developed mostly.' 


From: http://haiku-os.org/about/faq
Reading 'What is Haiku' I read it over a couple of times and still don't understand what's trying to be said in the last part of the sentence.
Agreed. What it is saying is Haiku is both the project name and the name of what the project is creating, a desktop operating system inspired by the Be Operating System. I don't think this precision is required. I would suggest the following:
"Haiku is a project to create a desktop operating system inspired by the Be Operating System."
Most people will assume the OS we are creating will use the same name unless we say otherwise.
If someone really feels it is important to distinguish between the project and the thing being created, maybe this is better:
"Haiku is both the name of our project and the name of what the project is creating: a desktop operating system inspired by the Be Operating System." 

But that sounds awkward to me too.


Under 'Why not Linux'. The first sentence should be rephrased.


Here is a suggestion for that:
"Linux-based distributions are made of a diverse collection of software that do not necessarily follow the same development guidelines and/or goals." 


Under 'Do you have a road map'?
'Our key goal for the Haiku 1.0 release (or R1 as we call it) is to achieve binary compatibility with and functionality that is at least equivalent to that of BeOS R5.' 

Take out 'with'.
In this case I don't agree. If "and functionality that is at least equivalent to that of" is removed the sentence would not make sense without the "with."
Oh! I found a link to donate! I find the location a little obscure though, at the end of the FAQs?
I'll look at more later. I don't consider myself an expert in English although I usually get quite decent marks on essays at University. Perhaps someone else on the mailing list can confirm these issues?
I am a native speaker and so far your grasp of the language is excellent. 

Ryan

Other related posts: