mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (05/16/88)
In article <941@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > In article <4659@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) writes: >> [...] the implementation of the kernal (or is it kernel? :-)) [...] > Yes, it's kernel with two "e"s. According to Webster's II: > "kernel ... 3: The most material and central part." Does anyone know where this widespread (on the net, at least) impression that the privileged part of a system is called its "kernal" came from? It grates every time I see it, but I generally manage to hold myself in check (I know I shouldn't flame spelling). > "-al" and "-ar" in English are morphemes connoting "pertaining to" > which form adjectives, so "kernal" would be an adjective meaning > "pertaining to an Irish or Scottish foot soldier (a kern)". "Kern" has another (entirely different) meaning in the context of typesetting. By the way, does anyone know whether this bears any relation to the etymology of "colonel"? I'm probably jumping at conclusions here, but the sound is so peculiar for the spelling that there must be something strange going on. I'm taking it upon myself to move this to sci.lang, since it has nothing to do with C any longer. der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
greg@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Greg Noel) (05/17/88)
In article <1102@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: >Does anyone know where this widespread (on the net, at least) >impression that the privileged part of a system is called its "kernal" >came from? One source is that Commodore's trade name for the operating system on the C-64 is "kernal." Those people with a microcomputer background would often see it in the literature spelled that way and would not have realized that it refered to a specific product and was not a generic term. >It grates every time I see it, but I generally manage to >hold myself in check (I know I shouldn't flame spelling). The one that grates on me is the abuse of "it's." The use of the apostrophe is perhaps the only rule in English that has no exceptions -- I certainly don't know of any others. There's no excuse for someone intellegent enough to program a computer to make a mistake using it. -- -- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo Greg.Noel@SanDiego.NCR.COM or greg@ncr-sd
doug-merritt@cup.portal.com (05/18/88)
der Mouse asks about the etymology of the word "kernal" as opposed to the standard spelling "kernel". It's from Commodore; that's the word they used to describe their C64 "operating system". Everyone else uses "kernel", and Commodore also uses "kernel" with the newer Amiga line. Doug ---
doug-merritt@cup.portal.com (05/18/88)
Greg Noel writes: >The one that grates on me is the abuse of "it's." The use of the apostrophe >is perhaps the only rule in English that has no exceptions -- I certainly >don't know of any others. There's no excuse for someone intellegent enough >to program a computer to make a mistake using it. Sure, it grates. But there certainly *is* an excuse...the two words "its" and "it's" are pronounced exactly the same way, and unlike other homophones, the misspelling is a question of punctuation rather than of alphabet. There's less visual distinction to use for error correcting feedback than there is with, say, "for" versus "four". I make sure of the right spelling by mentally using the long form "it is"; so my mnemonic is: if I can say "it is", I put in the apostrophe, otherwise I leave it out. If I am really rushed, hung over, disturbed, etc, then I may get sloppy and fail to apply that rule. The resulting mistake seems no different to me than any other kind of mistake, such as an error in mental arithmetic. Some people get annoyed at that, too. I'm not sure I see why; to understand all is to forgive all, no? To err is human... Doug --- Doug Merritt ucbvax!sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt or ucbvax!eris!doug (doug@eris.berkeley.edu) or ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug
ericb@athertn.Atherton.COM (Eric Black) (05/19/88)
In article <2219@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> greg@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Greg Noel) writes: >The one that grates on me is the abuse of "it's." The use of the apostrophe >is perhaps the only rule in English that has no exceptions -- I certainly >don't know of any others. There's no excuse for someone intellegent enough ^^^^^^^^^^ >to program a computer to make a mistake using it. >-- >-- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo Greg.Noel@SanDiego.NCR.COM or greg@ncr-sd I dunno, if their is any exceptions to that rule, than I dont now. Looks like you loose! <<< I think this one bothers me just as much, and it seems to happen more often (at least on USENET) Don't forget the ever-popular: Warning: something is hung (wont die); ps axl advised I guess they couldn't figure out how to put an apostrophe into a C string... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Eric Black "Garbage in, Gospel out" Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 UUCP: {sun,decwrl,hpda}!athertn!ericb Domainist: ericb@Atherton.COM
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/24/88)
In article <5553@cup.portal.com>, doug-merritt@cup.portal.com writes: > Greg Noel writes: > >The one that grates on me is the abuse of "it's." The use of the apostrophe > >is perhaps the only rule in English that has no exceptions -- I certainly > >don't know of any others. There's no excuse for someone intellegent enough ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >to program a computer to make a mistake using it. And even less excuse to fail to spell "intelligent" correctly. Clayton E. Cramer