On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Always Learning <centos at u62.u22.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 14:05 -0500, William Woods wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Always Learning <centos at u62.u22.net> wrote: > > > > C 5 works well for me. > > > > > > Centos 5 Fan :-) > > > That is probably the most pointless comment you have made yet. Just > because > > you use something, and you are a fan does not mean anything in the > context > > of the discussion. > > On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to > complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is. > And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7. > > Elsewhere you subsequently mentioned, after your apparently derogatory > remark about C5 being "ancient" that ancient does not mean bad. I > concur. > > Have a nice day. > > William didn't say that it was ancient, I did. If you think that "5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle" is "derogatory", it should come as no surprise to us that you've mixed up who you were talking too. > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. > > Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. > Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >