Re: [tlug] Using TAR

[roy lo <roylo@example.com>]

There is nothing "classic" about his partition style, if you don't 
believe me; ask anybody that has been a sys admin since the 80s or 
earily 90s.

> 
> I agree. Chris even prefaced his remark with "classic UNIX setup" or 
> some such tag. I was simply pointing out the differences between Classic 
> UNIX(tm) and Modern Linux RedDrake(tm) partitioning methods. If you run 
> RedDrake, you *have* to either conform to "RedHat/Mandrake excesses" or 
> be a bit clever with your symlinking. ;) I agree with Chris in saying 
> that the wise UNIX lords of times past were better than the modern 
> RedDrake guys (who are after market share, to some extent, so they 
> compromise a little to the ease-of-understanding (*cough* Windows 
> *cough*) end of the spectrum) in general. However, when Joe User asks 
> about RedDrake in specific, I'll give him the specific to RedDrake 
> partitioning scheme.
> 
> [And then roy lo said]
> 
>  > Apparently, you(chris) forgot the fact that /lib and /bin are NOT links
>  > from /usr in linux. (For those of you didn't know; in Unix systems such
>  > as Solaris, that /bin -> /usr/bin and /lib -> /usr/lib). So, your
>  > suggested 64mb is going to have problem (in a linux standard
>  > installation per say)
> 

Sure, and what makes you to judge me? Do you know more unix than I am?
(if you are trying to bring the cerfications crap to me, don't even try 
'cause I got them as well)
I'm not a likable person. but it is "un"professional to discredit 
someone in this way. I never say I know everything. And I always support 
my arguments with reasonable knowledge or source. If I make a mistake I 
accept quickly. I don't see many of you do that. Neverless, so far I'm 
the only person that is willing to say the word "sorry" and accept my 
mistakes (that I have see so far in this group).


> All I have to say about this is: consider the source--there is a reason 
> Chris has him killfiled! ;)
> 
> -Josh
>