Chris Murphy wrote on 2014-09-10 13:38 (GMT-0600):
Felix Miata wrote:
Given the widespread mis-use of dual-boot to mean more than one,
If by widespread you actually mean uncommon, then I agree.
I meant common in the common sense of the word common, as in this scenario:
1-bought PC, as most do, with Windows pre-installed 2-later navigated successfully through the shrink Windows and install *buntu process 3-still later either added a newer *buntu release, or added Debian/Fedora/Mint/openSUSE/yada, only to find "dual-boot" system remains "dual-boot" (can no longer boot original Linux distro) or has become (Linux) mono-boot?
Common can also apply in a more limited context, such as under this roof, where dual-boot machines are totally absent, mono-boot machines are scarce, and multi-boot machines are more than the fingers and toes on one human body can account for.
The word dual comes from a root word that means two. Any confusion on this point is made worse by using a prefix that doesn't mean two, but rather means many or much.
Whether worse depends on context. By using the broader term when generically speaking of a broader context, there should follow less mis-use of the narrower term, allowing it to better serve narrower contexts, as could happen on account of the decision underlying this thread.
I was trying to make the point that the written blocking language used needs to be especially carefully crafted to ensure it *can't* be misinterpreted to mean more than two.
Right, hence dual boot. I understand in the context of booting, the programming/engineering vernacular is multiboot. But release criteria attempts to use plain language whenever possible, and multi-boot is less specific than dual-boot.
Of course. But might it not serve better to capture broader audience attention first using the more inclusive term as a title, then apply the more restrictive term to drive home the point that there shall be a hard limit of two in the narrow Fedora release blocking context?