Hi On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway. Mark
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader. -- GPG fingerprint = 3D45 5509 D380 26A4 523E A9D8 A66A 5F38 CA43 BB0E
Jalal, On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew! I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader. Randall Schulz
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between: Yes, you can not install a boot loader. Yes, you cannot install a boot loader. jalal -- GPG fingerprint = 3D45 5509 D380 26A4 523E A9D8 A66A 5F38 CA43 BB0E
Jalal, On Thursday 20 January 2005 23:18, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
Sure: It's slim to none. Sorry, but that's just how English works.
jalal
Randall Schulz
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [01-21-05 11:06]:
On Thursday 20 January 2005 23:18, jalal wrote:
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
Sure: It's slim to none.
Sorry, but that's just how English works.
Might be somewhat clearer if explained, "can" indicates ability to perform and "may" indicates permission, while "cannot" is the inability to perform. Yes, you can 'not install' you have the ability to 'not install' (or install if you wish) Yes, you cannot 'install' you do not have the ability to 'install' note: the dictionary indicates that 'can not' and 'cannot' are the same in meaning but not spelling, but I believe that this is ancient. I believe this is: semantics note2: meanings or the understanding of a sentence vary appreciably with regard to location and time. The same sentence today may mean completely the opposite of what it meant sometime in the past and/or from northern US vs souther US vs eastern US vs Australia vs England vs ............... AND, the onus is upon the writer to properly convey _his_ meaning to his audience. I have spoken... -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos
Patrick wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] Grub Lilo' on Fri, Jan 21 at 10:22: [...]
AND, the onus is upon the writer to properly convey _his_ meaning to his audience.
I believe this to be the most important thing to come away from the digression thus containing. When communicating, it's well worth the time to ensure that one's ideas are communicated through the least ambiguous means possible. A little time up front saves a bunch of time explaining "what I *really* meant" afterwards... :) I'll make an exception (big of me, eh?) for non-native speakers, so long as said speakers are willing to learn from their mistakes. ;) --Danny, who's often ambiguous, though it's rarely intentional
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:22, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [01-21-05 11:06]:
Gees... The bottom line is that the person installing the OS has the option of installing a boot loader or not. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please* "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
Ken, On Friday 21 January 2005 10:13, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:22, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [01-21-05 11:06]:
Gees...
The bottom line is that the person installing the OS has the option of installing a boot loader or not. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well, the point is that the only reply given was worded in such a way as to quite strongly suggest that installing a boot loader was not an option. As nonsensical as that is, it had to be pointed out lest misinformation pass uncontested into the archives.
-- Ken Schneider
Randall Schulz
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 23:18, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
[Randall wrote in reply:] Sure: It's slim to none.
Sorry, but that's just how English works.
Apologies not needed. I'll learn to live with it. cheers -- GPG fingerprint = 3D45 5509 D380 26A4 523E A9D8 A66A 5F38 CA43 BB0E
Jalal, On Saturday 22 January 2005 00:40, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
...
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
[Randall wrote in reply:] Sure: It's slim to none.
Sorry, but that's just how English works.
Apologies not needed.
Thanks. I generally refrain from criticizing people's language, given how many people are not native English speakers, but I did it this time because I didn't want there to be confusion about the actual information conveyed.
I'll learn to live with it.
cheers
I'm cheery... Randal Schulz
On Friday 21 January 2005 7:18 am, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
jalal
In either case, as an L1 speaker of English, the 'not' seems to bind with 'can'. You could say "Yes, you can install no boot loader", in which case 'no' binds with boot loader. It sounds forced, but is clear. If you try to bind a negation with 'install', you get "Yes, you can uninstall a bootloader", which is a different meaning. You could also say "Yes, it is not mandatory to install a boot loader". This also is clear, but uses a passive, which is clumsy style. The trouble is that there are 4 shades of meaning here: {mandatory, permitted, not mandatory , not permitted} and we require the one which means 'not mandatory'. The problem with 'can' is: {can, cannot} -> {permitted, not permitted}. Similarly 'must' does not deliver: {must, must not} -> {mandatory, not permitted}. I would go with 'need to' or 'require to' {need to, need not} -> {[almost] mandatory, not mandatory} {require to, don't require to} -> {mandatory, not mandatory} So "Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader". Hope that helps. It helped me! Vince
On Friday 21 January 2005 11:51, Vince Littler wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2005 7:18 am, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
jalal
In either case, as an L1 speaker of English, the 'not' seems to bind with 'can'. You could say "Yes, you can install no boot loader", in which case 'no' binds with boot loader. It sounds forced, but is clear.
If you try to bind a negation with 'install', you get "Yes, you can uninstall a bootloader", which is a different meaning. You could also say "Yes, it is not mandatory to install a boot loader". This also is clear, but uses a passive, which is clumsy style.
The trouble is that there are 4 shades of meaning here: {mandatory, permitted, not mandatory , not permitted} and we require the one which means 'not mandatory'. The problem with 'can' is: {can, cannot} -> {permitted, not permitted}. Similarly 'must' does not deliver: {must, must not} -> {mandatory, not permitted}.
I would go with 'need to' or 'require to' {need to, need not} -> {[almost] mandatory, not mandatory} {require to, don't require to} -> {mandatory, not mandatory} So "Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader".
Actually all of you (except Randall) have answered the wrong question. The question was "...is there an option to...". "can", "cannot", "manditory", "required", etc. reflect your interpretation of the OP's intent. The most appropriate answer is "Yes, there is an option to not install a boot loader." or some variation of this as Randall suggested. Jeff
On Friday 21 January 2005 5:34 pm, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2005 11:51, Vince Littler wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2005 7:18 am, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
jalal
In either case, as an L1 speaker of English, the 'not' seems to bind with 'can'. [vl snipped] So "Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader".
Actually all of you (except Randall) have answered the wrong question. The question was "...is there an option to...". "can", "cannot", "manditory", "required", etc. reflect your interpretation of the OP's intent. The most appropriate answer is "Yes, there is an option to not install a boot loader." or some variation of this as Randall suggested.
Jeff
Fair 'nuff. but Jalal did ask us to contemplate on the difference between: Yes, you can not install a boot loader. Yes, you cannot install a boot loader. So that is mostly what I am addressing. To the specific context of the original question:
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
"Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader" also fit adequately.
participants (8)
-
Danny Sauer -
jalal -
Jeffrey Laramie -
Ken Schneider -
Mark Panen -
Patrick Shanahan -
Randall R Schulz -
Vince Littler