[PATCH] netstat: Clarify labels in UDP statistics.

Lauri Kenttä lauri.kentta at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 09:08:50 CST 2013

On 2013-02-13 11:03, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lauri Kenttä <lauri.kentta at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> On 2013-02-09 23:15, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
>>> "Invalid Datagrams" is too vague. It could mean datagrams sent or
>>> received.
>> I think it's pretty obvious. Nobody should send invalid datagrams 
>> anyway,
>> especially not using any actual datagram functions, so it would be
>> ridiculous to have a counter for it.
> Yet it's what Windows uses, and is more specific, so I don't really
> think this should modified

Ok, I'll leave it alone.

On 2013-02-13 11:03, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
> I meant if you find a msgstr ambiguous(which is not really a problem
> for the "No ports" IMHO), you can use msgctxt so that other
> translators benefit as well.

My main point is that "No Ports" is not only ambiguous but also wrong 
in two ways.

Bad wording: Why "ports" and not only "port" when this only concerns 
the single destination port of each datagram? How can there not be a 
port when the datagram always has a port field which can't be empty? 
(The RFC says that zero means empty only in the source port field, which 
implies that zero could be a valid destination.)

Bad meaning: dwNoPorts actually includes also datagrams with non-zero 
port if the port is closed (not listening). MSDN hints something like 
this, and this can be easily verified on Windows (2003 Server).

Ambiguity: There are many kinds of "no" and many kinds of "ports", and 
most people (even programmers!) probably don't know what's a datagram 
with "no ports". Also, translating "X" is quite different from 
translating "number of received datagrams with X", even more so when the 
source text is inaccurate.

Windows has lots of bad texts, I hope Wine doesn't need to provide 
"compatibility" for that. But if you still say so, I'll just add a 

Lauri Kenttä

More information about the wine-devel mailing list