[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly

[James Ewing Cottrell 3rd]

Please note that my comments were directed at Jason alone. After all, he 
claims to be a Consultant, which implies greater than average knowledge. 
People with lesser knowledge and experience are exempted from not 
knowing what they probably don't have the context to know.

JIM.

David Salinas wrote:

>LOL!! James! Easy there! 
>
>One of the processes of information gathering is ASKING questions. I
>being relatively new to Linux (2001-02) need to make sure exactly what
>version we were talking about. I'm NOT one of the original GURUs of
>1991. In fact the first time I heard about Linux was back in 1996. And
>I didn't even use it. Just saw it loaded on one of my friends PCs
>(Slackware).
>
>The first version of Advanced Server I used was 2.1. And it was
>referred to as AS 2.1. The Kernel version was very similar to what was
>in Red Hat 7.2. At that time the OS path was Red Hat 7.1, 7.2, 7.3.
>Then we started seeing Red Hat 8 and then Red Hat 9. AS 3.0 starting
>show up in the market. And now we see AS 4.x.
>
>Of course there's the WS, ES descriptors as well. Not just AS.
>
>So, in the past few years. I've never heard of any of the WS, ES, or AS
>version referred to as Red Hat x.x. Usually I hear it as RHEL3u5 or
>RHEL4u1. Or AS, ES, or WS something.
>
>When I saw the first post I thought she might mean AS 4.1. But I had to
>make sure. That's why I through my post into the hat. I thought, lets
>vet my assumption. 
>
>Before I posted, I immediately I did a check on google on "Red Hat 4.1"
>and I had found this: http://www.linux-kheops.com/doc/redhat41/
>
>And that was the premise of my comment. I had to make sure what version
>she was taking about. It's called dialog! Lets find out.
>
>I think the problem with your post is that you came along AFTER the
>fact. It's easy to say, "you should have know" after the thread had
>been going on a while. You came off as pompous ass!
>
>I'll be the first to admit that I don't know it all.  Linux is only
>four years new to me. I'm not a novice. But at least I gave you an
>explanation of why there was some confusion at first.
>
>Back when Red Hat 9 was out. I liked that we could distinguish between
>the Pro version and the WS, ES and AS versions. It made it easier to
>distinguish rather than just calling them all Red Hat <3.0 or 9.0>.
>That would have been too confusing.
>
>As I said before... I'm NOT one of the original GURUs of 1991 (or the
>even the late nineties). So the statement "should have know" is
>relative to the context of the situation.
>
>David -
>
>
>--- James Ewing Cottrell 3rd <JECottrell3 at Comcast.NET> 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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>