[OT] on wording of computer messages [was: Re: systemd fails to poweroff - "A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER"]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 8/13/14, Padraig Rocks <padraig.rocks at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 August 2014, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Ma, 12 aug 14, 12:51:12, Paul E Condon wrote:
>> > I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed
>> > use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a
>> ...
>> > In a better formulated message, there should be a comma ',' between
>> > 'user' and '$USER'. Thus if the USER of Session 2 is Joe, the message
>> > should read (adding a full stop at the end):
>> >
>> > "A stopped job is running for Session 2 of user, Joe."
>> >
>> > But even this is poorly worded. A job that is both running, and
>> > stopped is a goofy idea, as well as somewhat verbose. Maybe it should
>> > be:
>> >
>> > "A stopped job exists for Session 2 of user, Joe."
>>
>> As a non-native speaker of English I understood the message as being
>> about a job that tries to stop something, hence "a stop job". Also, the
>> comma definitely "feels" wrong. If anything that I'd rather put a colon,
>> but it's still quite understandable for me like it is.
>
> Or to avoid the comma ?
>
> " A stopped job exists in Session 2 of the user named Joe"

I too read the error as meaning a special noun/ special process or
application called a "stop job".

Often resequencing an English sentence can help to remove ambiguities, eg:
For Session 2 of user joe, a stop job exists.

Or of course if the word is meant to be stopped:
For Session 2 of user joe, a stopped job exists.

There should also be a suggestion in the error message of timeout eg:
For Session 2 of user joe, a stop job exists; now waiting up to 90 seconds.

Regards,
Zenaan