> I'm beginning to understand why Vandaman was so stiff about his
> responses, and the more BS we allow in, the more we'll get.
And then those who genuinely need the help will be lost in a sea of
random threads.
Mailing lists need to be reigned in a bit tighter; for those of you
wanting to talk a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've just installed CentOS. my X doesn't work. Now what do I do to fix
> it.
>
> A valid question needing a valid answer. List maintainers can do what I
> do. Skip the thread.
>
But asked in a totally inappropriate fashion.
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 12:45 -0700, bruce wrote:
> say bob...
>
> it appears some would like to have the proverbial question "how can i do X"
> removed as well, particularly if X isn't somehow a direct centos issue.
> however, it might be that X is indeed a package in the centos mirror!!
>
> for
ednesday, October 15, 2008 11:57 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 12:06 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> A bit of common sense comes in handy. Talking about something that the
> developers of a component need to weight in on is defin
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 12:06 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> A bit of common sense comes in handy. Talking about something that the
> developers of a component need to weight in on is definitely best suited
> to the upstream lists for the component. If you hit specific issues with
> the implement
bably off topic as well!!
this sounds like catch-22!! (yeah, i'm old!, and well read!)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of David Mackintosh
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:07 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: is parte
Guest ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) kirjoitteli (15.10.2008 15:05):
> It's your guys' list, but if you habitually err on the side of
> rejecting interested newcomers, you'll eventually run out of
> newcomers.
I agree - I enjoy reading about the insights of experienced users, even when
nobody is having an u
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:12 AM, John Newbigin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Until CentOS 4.7, parted would create DOS partitions > 2Tb.
>
> DOS partitions can not be > 2Tb. This could "...corrupt partition tables and
> ruin filesystem".
>
> The latest version from CentOS 4.7 fixes this (and other)
2008/10/15 Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> David Mackintosh wrote:
>>
>> How off-topic is it to ask precisely what is on-topic for this list
>> if questions and discussions of the included components belong on the
>> support mechanisms for those individual parts, and the rest (ie anaconda
>>
David Mackintosh wrote:
How off-topic is it to ask precisely what is on-topic for this list
if questions and discussions of the included components belong on the
support mechanisms for those individual parts, and the rest (ie anaconda
and friends) probably belongs in the upstream vendor's forums?
Until CentOS 4.7, parted would create DOS partitions > 2Tb.
DOS partitions can not be > 2Tb. This could "...corrupt partition tables
and ruin filesystem".
The latest version from CentOS 4.7 fixes this (and other) bugs.
John.
Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi, I've read on LPI Linux Certification (Ed
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:13:18PM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> And Just to remind everyone that no, this is still not a general
> conversation about stuff list.
How off-topic is it to ask precisely what is on-topic for this list
if questions and discussions of the included components belong
Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi, I've read on LPI Linux Certification (Ed O'Reilly) in a nutshell
the following thing:
"parted, unfortunately, has been known to corrupt partition tables and
ruin filesystem."
Sounds like a question for the parted list, not here. Plenty of stuff in
CentOS uses parted
13 matches
Mail list logo
