[CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?
Robert
kerplop at sbcglobal.netFri Dec 2 16:11:58 UTC 2005
- Previous message: [CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?
- Next message: [CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Preston Crawford wrote: >On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 12:54 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > > >>Let's get the reality straight, these are upstream provider defaults and >>they aren't going to change for that reason -- at least not in the stock >>CentOS distribution. So why do we see the bitching for the impossible? >> >> > >Better question... why would you even WANT to complain? I don't get it >either. > Really! [rj at mavis pop]$ grep "why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?" ./CentOS | wc -l 54 [rj at mavis pop]$ It would be interesting to know how many posts giving help for real problems -- indeed, how many calls for help on bugs, procedures, packages, etc -- have been lost in that pile of drivel. The "why, why, why" reminds me so much of my great-grandson.... before his 5th birthday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051202/ef0584fd/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message: [CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?
- Next message: [CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list