1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/docs/markdown/Design-rationale.md b/docs/markdown/Design-rationale.md
index 2f6068e..a598161 100644
--- a/docs/markdown/Design-rationale.md
+++ b/docs/markdown/Design-rationale.md
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Those are pretty much universally despised.
 
 The most positive statement on build systems you can usually get (and it might require some coaxing) is something along the lines of *well, it's a terrible system, but all other options are even worse*. It is easy to see why this is the case. For starters, commonly used free build systems have obtuse syntaxes. They use for the most part global variables that are set in random locations so you can never really be sure what a given line of code does. They do strange and unpredictable things at every turn.
 
-Let's illustrate this with a simple example. Suppose we want to run a program built with GNU Autotools under gdb. The instinctive thing to do is to just run `gdb programname`. The problem is that this may or may not work. In some cases the executable file is a binary whereas at other times it is a wrapper shell script that invokes the real binary which resides in a hidden subdirectory. Gdb invocation fails if the binary is a script but succeeds if it is not. The user has to remember the type of each one of his executables (which is an implementation detail of the build system) just to be able to debug them. Several other such pain points can be found in [this blog post](http://voices.canonical.com/jussi.pakkanen/2011/09/13/autotools/).
+Let's illustrate this with a simple example. Suppose we want to run a program built with GNU Autotools under GDB. The instinctive thing to do is to just run `gdb programname`. The problem is that this may or may not work. In some cases the executable file is a binary whereas at other times it is a wrapper shell script that invokes the real binary which resides in a hidden subdirectory. GDB invocation fails if the binary is a script but succeeds if it is not. The user has to remember the type of each one of his executables (which is an implementation detail of the build system) just to be able to debug them. Several other such pain points can be found in [this blog post](http://voices.canonical.com/jussi.pakkanen/2011/09/13/autotools/).
 
 Given these idiosyncrasies it is no wonder that most people don't want to have anything to do with build systems. They'll just copypaste code that works (somewhat) in one place to another and hope for the best. They actively go out of their way not to understand the system because the mere thought of it is repulsive. Doing this also provides a kind of inverse job security. If you don't know tool X, there's less chance of finding yourself responsible for its use in your organisation. Instead you get to work on more enjoyable things.
 
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ A lot of free software projects can be used on non-free platforms such as Window
 
 ###5. Must not add complexity due to obsolete platforms###
 
-Work on this build system started during the Christmas holidays of 2012. This provides a natural hard cutoff line of 2012/12/24. Any platform, tool or library that was not in active use at that time is explicitly not supported. These include unixes such as IRIX, SunOS, OSF-1, Ubuntu versions older than 12/10, GCC versions older than 4.7 and so on. If these old versions happen to work, great. If they don't, not a single line of code will be added to the system to work around their bugs.
+Work on this build system started during the Christmas holidays of 2012. This provides a natural hard cutoff line of 2012/12/24. Any platform, tool or library that was not in active use at that time is explicitly not supported. These include Unixes such as IRIX, SunOS, OSF-1, Ubuntu versions older than 12/10, GCC versions older than 4.7 and so on. If these old versions happen to work, great. If they don't, not a single line of code will be added to the system to work around their bugs.
 
 ###6. Must be fast###