Corrected a few words for more clarity

An "internally" was added to the part about core GNU tools accounting for
the differences between POSIX-compatible systems. One extra word was also
removed in the next sentence.

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index 62e4f1e..648bfc6 100644
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -434,8 +434,8 @@ We have thus found that more than once, advanced users add, or fix, their requir
 
 On a related note, POSIX is a fuzzy standard and it doesn't guarantee the bit-wise reproducibility of programs.
 However, it has been chosen as the underlying platform here because the results (data) are our focus, not the compiled software.
-POSIX is ubiquitous and fixed versions of low-level software (e.g., core GNU tools) are installable on the majority of them; each correcting for differences affecting their functionality.
-On GNU/Linux hosts, Maneage even builds a precise version of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), GNU Binutils and GNU C library (glibc).
+POSIX is ubiquitous and fixed versions of low-level software (e.g., core GNU tools) are installable on the majority of them; each internally correcting for differences affecting their functionality.
+On GNU/Linux hosts, Maneage builds precise versions of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), GNU Binutils and GNU C library (glibc).
 However, glibc is not installable on some POSIX OSs (e.g., macOS).
 The C library is linked with all programs, this can theoretically hinder exact reproducibility \emph{of results}, but we have not encountered any until now.
 When present, the non-reproducibility of high-level science results due to differing C libraries can be identified with respect to known sources of error in the analysis (like measurement errors), but studying this is another research project.