[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly
jason at dixongroup.net
Wed Nov 16 20:53:17 CST 2005
On Nov 16, 2005, at 7:17 PM, James Ewing Cottrell 3rd wrote:
> Now I haven't heard anyone say Red Hat 4.1 either, but my point is
> you are likely to start hearing it more often. The fact that Google
> supports the Correct nomenclature is due to several factors:
>  Google is Historic. It's got Old Stuff.
>  People tend to be more correct when writing.
Thank you for proving our point.
> The fact is, that Jason DID make an assumption! He took a novice
> literally, when the evidence was overwhelmingly against him.
What evidence? At least 4 other people now have made the same
assumption. Suddenly, you choose to come out of the woodwork, a week
later, to badger me.
> Anyone worthy of the name "Consultant" should be able to pick that up.
> All I can say is that Jason missed a chance to impress me.
Why in the hell would I need to impress you?
> Note that it is even permissible to have missed the 4.1 => RHEL
> equivalence. A simple "I didn't think of that" will do nicely. What
> NOT do is insisting that you are Right because you are Technically
What was I insisting I was "Right" about? I simply asked the OP to
clarify their software next time so as to avoid confusion.
> You have to hear what people mean despite what they say.
Easy for you to pop out a week after the thread died and force your
judgement on others. Next time, try offering your input while you
had the opportunity to enlighten us.
> P.S. Do you really think that the SEC has old servers running 4.1??? I
> doubt it!
Listen to what you're saying-- it's impossible that a large
government organization might have a forgotten server sitting in a
dark room somewhere. Riiiiiight.
P.S. Try not to take what I've said too personally, I'm not here to
More information about the lug