RE: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
thank you just who decides what is the correct list of stuff to talk about on this list... and then maybe the rest of us should have a centos+ list, for the other 8 billion things that we might run into that we're trying to solve/share information for.. jeeze! oh, my bad, this is probably 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 parted reliable? 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 on the support mechanisms for those individual parts, and the rest (ie anaconda and friends) probably belongs in the upstream vendor's forums? What does that leave? The color of the logo? (I like the blue.) -- /\oo/\ / /()\ \ David Mackintosh | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xdroop.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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) bugs. John. 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. What do you think about it? Greets! This is awfully presumptuous of a list newcomer like me, but this reply pretty clearly shows that the list monitor who intervened to criticize the OP was overreacting. There's always a way to make a good, on-topic thread out of a fair question. It's your guys' list, but if you habitually err on the side of rejecting interested newcomers, you'll eventually run out of newcomers. Go look at how the FreeBSD'ers have run their lists over the past 20 years - each question is an opportunity for the old-timers to share something they've learned - which naturally generates interest and enthusiasm - and newcomers are taken by the hand rather than shown the door. Be generous in what you accept, conservative in what you send - right? Anyway, I'm out of line, so I apologize - but here's another vote for list inclusiveness. It's not like the dude was asking about football. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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? 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 implementation on CentOS, thats different. Random drive by surveys, and request for comments on a blog posts etc are definitely a waste of time for *this* list. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
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 definitely best suited to the upstream lists for the component. If you hit specific issues with the implementation on CentOS, thats different. Hm. CentOS is a renamed, compiled from source, of the Red Hat sources with a CentOS logo inserted at appropriate places plus, perhaps other changes as required. Having said that and your comment above seems to leave *very* little to discuss on this list. Since *any* Linux based distribution includes hundreds of packages, it is my very humble opinion that this list is the starting place for, especially the very new people or those with little time to *really* learn the administration of an operating system such as CentOS. I would would expect the maintainers of this list to understand this. I have been running Red Hat since I purchased Linux Unleashed, First Edition, Copyright 1995 with one CD that contained three complete distributions with sources. Look at the expansion of the base distribution now. Personally, I'm *way* behind! Random drive by surveys, and request for comments on a blog posts etc are definitely a waste of time for *this* list. Of course this crap should *not* be tolerated, including spam. Enough soap box from me. Bob -- Bob Taylor ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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 and friends) probably belongs in the upstream vendor's forums? 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 implementation on CentOS, thats different. Random drive by surveys, and request for comments on a blog posts etc are definitely a waste of time for *this* list. -- Karanbir, OK, you're right, although I'd be more flexible, the subject was prefixed with an OT:. I didn't ask what do you prefer to be president of USA if Obama or McCain, neither I was offering a way of improving sexual power :) But again, if you put the rules in that way, ok you're right. Sorry for annoyances. -- -- Open Kairos http://www.openkairos.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com Sergio Belkin - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
RE: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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 my $0.02 worth, asking a question never hurts, and you can always choose to not reply, while someone else might repsond with the answer, which then might even help someone else who's later searching through the archives!!! IMHO, other than *very* newbies, I would expect people to at least try Google, then apropos and man if appropriate. My point was that the base distribution is now so large, that many people are overwhelmed. Such as: 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. All too many people just need a place to *start* or a gentle *hint*. Just *how* many lists are we supposed to be members of? Bob -- Bob Taylor ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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. The question should be posted as: I've just installed CentOS 5.2 32-bit on an XXX CPU machine with xxGB of memory and xxGB of disk (in an LVM or whatever). My X doesn't work - when I try it I get this: disturbing problem output I've read the man pages and Googled for this, but nothing shows up that explains it (or my search criteria yadda yadda blah weren't an effective choice). Even moderately experienced Linux people like me need at least that much information just to know if I know enough to answer, and eventually this information should come out anyway. Putting it up front shows a) the user knows enough to ask a decent question and b) more experienced users who might be able to answer should have enough either to answer or ask more specific questions leading to an answer. This is basic list etiquette, and in the last two weeks I've seen more questions in the first form above (Bob's) that required digging in toward the second form (my example) before anything was forthcoming. That's a waste of the list's space and the user's time, if we read them at all. I've made noises about this from time to time, but now I just don't care enough to answer them any more because, as little as I know from my ten years with Linux, almost 2 with CentOS and not quite 29 with computers in general, I'm not willing to waste my time or delve into my experience to answer such illiterate questions. If I did, the answer would probably be RTFM, STFW or something like that (pretty much what I've been told :-). 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. This is NOT to say that newbies and newcomers to the list should never ask questions, but for heaven's sake - do some research FIRST, and then provide as much useful information as you can when you DO ask. You're supposed to read the list (or lurk, I suppose) for at least a MONTH before asking a question, just so you can get a feel for what works best and how people interact (read the list etiquette rules linked at the page at the bottom of this, and every, post). And, yes, Read The Flicking Manuals, Search The Frigging Web and THEN ask if you don't have an answer. And, yes, even I (sounds grandiose but I don't mean it that way...) sometimes miss one of those, or ask something dumb - it happens. When you've shown that you know how to ask, preferably more often than not, you get some courtesy from those who know because you have made the effort. Sometimes searching the web is trickier than it seems, and one query might not give you everything if you don't ask quite right. /rant2 mhr ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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 about random stuff, or wanting to talk about tangential topics, you should be visiting forums like linuxforums.org. The argument of choose what you read is garbage in my opinion as mailing lists are a pull medium. Subscribers are receiving all messages. They don't get a say in that unless they completely unsubscribe. On forums, you can pick and choose at your leisure. That's the point of them. -- Spiro Harvey Knossos Networks Ltd 021-295-1923www.knossos.net.nz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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. What do you think about it? Greets! -- -- Open Kairos http://www.openkairos.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com Sergio Belkin - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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, and there is nothing you can do about it. And Just to remind everyone that no, this is still not a general conversation about stuff list. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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 on the support mechanisms for those individual parts, and the rest (ie anaconda and friends) probably belongs in the upstream vendor's forums? What does that leave? The color of the logo? (I like the blue.) -- /\oo/\ / /()\ \ David Mackintosh | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xdroop.com pgpCpqHcm20c6.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OT: is parted reliable?
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 O'Reilly) in a nutshell the following thing: parted, unfortunately, has been known to corrupt partition tables and ruin filesystem. What do you think about it? Greets! -- John Newbigin ITS Senior Analyst / Programmer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
