Git-Mirrors/qubes-doc
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-doc.git synced 2025-03-26 00:08:09 -04:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add section on the capitalization of "qube"

Browse Source 
Related to QubesOS/qubes-issues#8057
This commit is contained in:
Andrew David Wong 2023-03-04 15:29:43 -08:00
parent a55e7ab7f2
commit da7794d9be
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 8CE137352A019A17
1 changed files with 55 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

55
developer/general/documentation-style-guide.md
View File

@ -328,6 +328,61 @@ can be accomplished in one of several ways:
different values, but if you've correctly judged that they should use the
command you've provided as is, then this shouldn't matter.
### Capitalization of "qube"
We introduced the term ["qube"](/doc/glossary/#qube) as a user-friendly
alternative to the term ["virtual machine" ("VM")](/doc/glossary/#vm) in the
context of Qubes OS. Nonetheless, "qube" is a common noun like the words
"compartment" and "container." Therefore, in English, "qube" follows the
standard capitalization rules for common nouns. For example, "I have three
qubes" is correct, while "I have three Qubes" is incorrect. Like other common
nouns, "qube" should still be capitalized at the beginnings of sentences, the
beginnings of sentence-case headings, and in title-case headings. Note,
however, that starting a sentence with the plural of "qube" (e.g., "Qubes can
be shut down...") can be ambiguous, since it may not be clear whether the
referent is a plurality of qubes, [Qubes OS](/doc/glossary/#qubes-os), or even
the Qubes OS Project itself. Hence, it is generally a good idea to rephrase
such sentences in order to avoid this ambiguity.
Many people feel a strong temptation to capitalize the word "qube" all the
time, like a proper noun, perhaps because it's a new and unfamiliar term that's
closely associated with a particular piece of software (namely, Qubes OS).
However, these factors are not relevant to the capitalization rules of English.
In fact, it's not unusual for new common nouns to be introduced into English,
especially in the context of technology. For example, "blockchain" is a
relatively recent technical term that's a common noun. Why is it a common noun
rather than a proper noun? Because proper nouns refer to *particular* people,
places, things, and ideas. There are many different blockchains. However, even
when there was just one, the word still denoted a collection of things rather
than a particular thing. It happened to be the case that there was only one
member in that collection at the time. For example, if there happened to be
only one tree in the world, that wouldn't change the way we capitalize
sentences like, "John sat under a tree." Intuitively, it makes sense that the
addition and removal of objects from the world shouldn't cause published books
to become orthographicallly incorrect while sitting on their shelves.
Accordingly, the reason "qube" is a common noun rather than a proper noun is
because it doesn't refer to any one specific thing (in this case, any one
specific virtual machine). Rather, it's the term for any virtual machine in a
Qubes OS installation. (Technically, while qubes are currently implemented as
virtual machines, Qubes OS is independent of its underlying
compartmentalization technology. Virtual machines could be replaced with a
different technology, and qubes would still be called "qubes.")
I have several qubes in my Qubes OS installation, and you have several in
yours. Every Qubes OS user has their own set of qubes, just as each of us lives
in some neighborhood on some street. Yet we aren't tempted to treat words like
"neighborhood" or "street" as proper nouns (unless, of course, they're part of
a name, like "Acorn Street"). Again, while this might seem odd because "qube"
is a new word that we invented, that doesn't change how English works. After
all, *every* word was a new word that someone invented at some point (otherwise
we wouldn't have any words at all). We treat "telephone," "computer,"
"network," "program," and so on as common nouns, even though those were all new
technological inventions in the not-too-distant past (on a historical scale, at
least). So, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be confused by irrelevant factors,
like the fact that the inventors happened to be *us* or that the invention was
*recent* or is not in widespread use among humanity.
## Organizational guidelines
### Do not duplicate documentation