Re: [RFR] wml://users/gov/ditcouncileurope.wml
David Prévot wrote:
> # From: Samuel Chaboisseau <samuel.chaboisseau@coe.int>
> # Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:44:44 +0000 <687B54BB9544854A8F46EA40B3DAECE908197624@V-LINGUISTIX01.key.coe.int>
>
> <define-tag pagetitle>Directorate of Information Technology, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France</define-tag>
> <define-tag webpage>http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/coe-portal</define-tag>
>
> #use wml::debian::translation-check original="french" translation="1.3"
> #use wml::debian::users
>
> <p>
> The Council of Europe chose Open Source tools to handle its
> network and related services (DNS, Firewall, MTA, etc.).
Simple past tense is appropriate for historical background, but this
is a news item, so use present-perfect:
The Council of Europe has chosen Open Source tools to handle its
network and related services (DNS, firewall, MTA, etc.).
> Since early 2004, the team in charge of these services received
> a reinforcement which has broadened the scope of the organization
> and allowed to meet customer needs on the following:
Ditto. Plus, "received a reinforcement" isn't quite right. Is it
talking about an increase in staff or in resources? I've assumed the
former, but depending on circumstances it might translate better as
something like "received a boost".
As usual "allowed" is doing something that isn't allowed.
Since early 2004, the team in charge of these services has benefitted
from reinforcements, which has allowed the organization to broaden
its scope and meet customer needs on the following points:
(Leaving it en_US with -iz-)
> </p>
> <ul>
> <li>
> network support;
> </li>
> <li>
> 40 open source based website applications;
Is this a Useless Use of "Based"? If the webapps are only *based* on
open source software (but are themselves closed), that's not much to
boast about. Looking at the original I wonder if in fact it was
trying to say:
websites based on 40 open source applications;
Or maybe:
websites running 40 open source web applications;
> </li>
> <li>
> monitoring.
> </li>
> </ul>
> <p>
> All applications are shared on 25 Linux servers, including 21
> running the <q>stable</q> Debian GNU/Linux distribution, and
> 4 running the Red Hat distribution, with over 3000 clients.
25 including 21 of one thing, 4 of another, and very few left over.
All these applications are shared across 25 Linux servers - 21 running
the <q>stable</q> release of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and 4
running the Red Hat distribution - with over 3,000 clients.
(Come to that I'd strengthen the punctuation in the French, too.)
> </p>
> <p>
> Debian was the natural choice given its quality and stability since 1999.
Wait, so people shouldn't have been running business-critical servers
on Debian before then? Oops. Still, this appears to be a correct and
idiomatic translation.
> This choice allows us to apply the following strict upgrade policy,
> ensuring the Council of Europe information system efficiency:
A slightly malfunctioning nounpile, though for once it's not the fault
of the word "allow".
This choice allows us to apply the following strict upgrade policy,
ensuring the efficiency of the the Council of Europe's information
system:
> </p>
> <ul>
> <li>
> minor evolutions: major security or software regression
> fixes, without production effect nor service unavailability;
> </li>
Should "evolutions" perhaps be literal "roll-outs"? It isn't
"evolutions", anyway.
minor upgrades: fixes for major security issues or software
regressions, with no impact on production, achieved without service
downtime;
> <li>
> major (<q>stable</q>) upgrade: this important
> process is due about once every two years.
(The original says "is carried out", but "is due" is also true.)
> It may induce effects on the application and thus go through
> a validation and tests process before being deployed.
What application? Presumably any and all applications, so say:
It may have effects on applications, and thus goes through
a validation and testing process before being deployed.
> Disaster recovery tests for every server is also conducted jointly.
Oh, "jointly" with the stable upgrades? I don't think you can say
that... it's easier if I turn it around:
It is conducted together with disaster recovery tests for each
server.
("Every" server suggests they're all tested at the same time, which
sounds risky but might I suppose be true.)
> </li>
> </ul>
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: