On Thursday 07 February 2013 21:37:27 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: > >> I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did... > > > > I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion. > > Ok, thanks, but... and no offense... > > I am not willing to gamble on breaking a remotely accessed server based > on someone's 'I believe that this is correct' comment.
If you go ahead with your proposed change against the advice you've been offered, you WILL break it. -- Peter
