[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly

Jason Dixon 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  
> that
> you are likely to start hearing it more often. The fact that Google
> supports the Correct nomenclature is due to several factors:
> [1] Google is Historic. It's got Old Stuff.
> [2] 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  
> will
> NOT do is insisting that you are Right because you are Technically  
> Correct.

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  
impress you.

Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting

More information about the lug mailing list