[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly

[Jason Dixon]

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
http://www.dixongroup.net