--- RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 02:57, Jonathan Horne
> wrote:
> > i just decided to take a box, and installworld,
> without going to single
> > user mode. from what i can see, the update was
> completely successful. of
> > course, other then myself (su'd to root),
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:57, Jonathan Horne wrote:
> i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single
> user mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of
> course, other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged
> in).
>
> i wond
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Jonathan Horne wrote:
i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single user
mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of course,
other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged in).
i wonder how many people a
On Sunday 06 August 2006 21:57, Jonathan Horne wrote:
> i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single
> user mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of
> course, other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged
> in).
>
> i wond
On 8/7/06, Jonathan Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installworld
without changing to single user mode? i wonder what is truly at risk from
not going to single mode?
I've done this plenty of times, and the only time I find I have probl
i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single user
mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of course,
other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged in).
i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installwor
