Hi.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:22:38AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say
> > "forced", but note that I didn't say it
On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say
> "forced", but note that I didn't say it) and they *knew* that xfs will
> lead to data loss if used without battery-backed stor
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of
> > the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them.
> > On the other side though we have some really c
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of
> the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them.
> On the other side though we have some really controversial things like
> SecureBoot support, Wayland, GTK3, xfs, and
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:55:03AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.
> >
> > You seem to be
Hi.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:55:03AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.
>
> You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us.
On the contrary. I'm pe
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
> Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.
You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us.
Cheers
-- tomás
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:49:48AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:42:27PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux"
> > package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course.
> > The question is - who should
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:42:27PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux"
> package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course.
> The question is - who should I thank for this?
The stretch man page says:
DESCRIPTION
tail
Dear list,
This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux"
package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course.
The question is - who should I thank for this?
Reco
10 matches
Mail list logo
