[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly

Thu Nov 24 18:00:22 CST 2005

David Salinas wrote:

>Actually, I think you just have a personal beef with Jason.
>
Not at all. We have never met. I have already said that he seems to know 
his stuff, and rereading his postings validates that. He even seems to 
pepper his postings with cavalier humor from time to time. My kinda guy.

But hey, it's nice to fess up when you blow it.

>It's
>something that got blow out of proportion when members of this group
>put YOU on the spot -- you tried to redirect the focuse back on Jason!
>  
>
Put me on the spot for what? Being (as you say) a Pompous Ass? We all 
know that! But I didn't start out that way. I merely pointed out that 
Anyone With Any Experience should have been able to Figure It Out.

>It's also should be understood that a lot of the standards that you
>placed on Jason you failed to follow too -- consultant title or not.
>  
>
I will repeat it for your satisfaction. Yeah, I'm a Pompous Ass. And as 
Miss Manners says, pointing out that someone is Rude (or wrong) is Rude 
itself. But it's the way I decided to play this one.

>You come off sounding like a hypocrite in many of your post. Do you
>think you are PERFECT?!
>  
>
Of course not. Don't put words in my mouth.

How and where am I a hypocrite? In this thread or others? I invite your 
feedback, but be aware that the burden of proof is on you.

>Jason's original post was more of a *helpful open ended question* that
>it was a criticism
>
Once again, read His Exact Words:

<jason>
Wow. You're doing yourself a big disservice by not building a new system 
with a modern distribution and migrating services over in parallel.
</jason>

I see no Question here. What I DO see is an Assumption. And an Incorrect 
one at that.

>or terribly wrong assumption (like you make it
>sound). It was YOU that took it that way when you made your broad
>statement that "he should have known better (personal beef?)." Fine.
>  
>
Nothing Personal.

>Maybe that's true. All this could have been avoided if that ever so
>elusive reply from Joan would have entered the conversation. But no.
>She chose to be silent! Then we were left with missing information.
>  
>
Most likely Ms. Joan is appalled at the amount of testosterone flying 
around, and has probably sought out another LUG. But the information is 
there; you just can't see it.

>Then, when your TONE was questioned, you ended up going through this
>long explanation trying to defend your position, using circular logic,
>broad generalizations and ASSUMPTIONS as well.
>
It's not about the Tone. I started out being nice. I got progressively 
more aggressive as his denials did.

>I mean, what? Do you resent Jason's title? Did he kick your dog?  What?
>  
>
I have no problems with him claiming to be a Consultant. But then I do 
think he should act like one. And I do expect him to know more than the 
average guy (he obviously does) and/or one of the following: [1] the 
ability to correctly Read Between The Lines or [2] the ability to Admit 
He Blew One.

JIM

>--- James Ewing Cottrell 3rd <JECottrell3 at Comcast.NET> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>