[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly

David A. Cafaro dac at cafaro.net
Wed Nov 16 16:05:17 CST 2005


Actually those that questioned what release she was using were correct
to do so.  It is ALWAYS a bad idea to assume something when trying to
diagnose computer problems, that can lead you to dead ends at best and
lost data/hardware at worse.

Also even as old as RH 4.1 is, I would not be surprised to find a
version still running in some hidden server room somewhere.  I've found
servers running far older software than that still in full production
use.

And a final note, a google search of RedHat 4.1, the first two pages at
least all refer to the RedHat 4.1 and not RHEL 4 update 1.  I have not
met anyone yet online or offline (until now) that referred to RHEL 4
updates as . release.

I just point this out as it isn't about being to literal as trying to be
correct.  The only way to be correct is to confirm what someone is
actually talking about.  RedHat 4.1 is a vague answer these days, as
this thread has definitely shown.

Cheers,
David

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 16:26 -0500, James Ewing Cottrell 3rd wrote:
> You are being Too Literal. What is Officially called "RHEL 4.1" or "Red 
> Hat Advanced Server 4.1" is being called "Red Hat 4.1" by people on the 
> street (or at least the net) these days, including the original poster.
> 
> Yes, RH4.1 is so old that for all practical purposes It No Longer 
> Exists. It may not even run on newer hardware. So she couldn't possibly 
> mean that. Besides, anyone playing with Linux back in those days 
> probably wouldn't ask a question like that.
> 
> My point is that you should have been able to figure out that she was 
> talking about RHEL AS 4.1 rather than the decade-old Red Hat 4.1.
> 
> JIM
> 
> Jason Dixon wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2005, at 12:49 AM, James Ewing Cottrell 3rd wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>No, she is correct. You should have known what she meant.
> > 
> > 
> > Correct about what?  There is only one product known as "Red Hat 4.1"  
> > and it was deprecated YEARS ago.  I wasn't trying to pick on her, but  
> > it obviously confused others as well, and we were concerned that she  
> > might be using an unsupported system.  Why do you claim to speak for  
> > Joan, a week after the thread ended anyway?
> > 
> > </need caffeine>
> > 
> > --
> > Jason Dixon
> > DixonGroup Consulting
> > http://www.dixongroup.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Columbia, Maryland Linux User's Group (CALUG) mailing list
> > CALUG Website: http://www.calug.com
> > Email postings to: lug at calug.com
> > Change your list subscription options: http://calug.com/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Columbia, Maryland Linux User's Group (CALUG) mailing list
> CALUG Website: http://www.calug.com
> Email postings to: lug at calug.com
> Change your list subscription options: http://calug.com/mailman/listinfo/lug



More information about the lug mailing list