On 12/30/02 16:20, Marvin P. Dickens wrote:
you provided no references,
and just did a lot of hand waving about what is happening on other mailing
lists with respect to a bleeding edge _unstable_ kernel.Lonnie, ever since you became an editor on this site you think you know it all.
I've been an editor since day one. Make what you like of that.
Well, you don't. Further, you have a big ego and a mouth to go with it. In previousFlame you? Unlike your recent display of infantile behavior, i wasn't flaming you, I was questioning your claim, and you failed to back it up. I made sure as hell not to make this personal, but sinsce you were apparently grasping at straws, you made it personal. Sorry if you're so thin skinned that you take that personally. Contrary to your assertions, I happen to have the experience to know that a box without swap is an unstable timebomb waiting to go off. I've seen servers that were setup without swap, have their kernels randomly kill off processes in an attempt to free up physical memory. I've seen this happen with a 2.4.x kernel several times. I don't care how much you want to jump up & down screaming that you're right, my experience proves otherwise. All you're had to bulster your flawed argument was arcane references to ancient research. Removing swap is not a performance enhancer under a 2.4.x kernel, and wasn't under a 2.2.x kernel either. If you knew half of what you claim, you'd be aware that the VM under an ancient 2.0.x kernel is night & day different than that of a 2.2.x or 2.4.x kernel. Comparing the two is comparing dogs to minivans.
posts I have shown you material from earlier kernels (Which the information applies to the current kernel whether you think it does or not) I show you information regarding
future kernels and you and you flame me.
It was flawed, and you were called on it. Why not accept that fact that you were wrong? I didn't realize that so much of your ego was riding on each contribution to this list.I have tried to share information with people that I thought would be useful. You,
on the other hand are interested in debate and flames. I don't have the time for such nonsense. So, tell you what: I'll unsubscribe and not participate anymore.Yea, apparently you only have the time to launch flames at me, and then run for cover. You didnt' have the time to defend your argument, because you had none.
THis isn't my list, i don't care who is a member, or who isn't. You're only spiting yourself by leaving. HAND.That way both of us are happy: You get to decide what is right and wrong for the rest of this list and since I'm not on it anymore, I don't have to listed to it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
4:30pm up 15 days, 23:39, 2 users, load average: 0.35, 0.72, 0.56
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
