On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 01:59:19 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > There's nothing gratuitous about it.
> > It's perfectly suited for the purpose, in this particular case.
>
> No it is not: there's no need for it. it adds nothing useful, and it
> makes one wince. The sense would not have been chang
On Thursday 13 January 2011 01:40:09 Dale wrote:
> You got a crystal ball or something?
Not yet, my supplier is still awaiting new stock from the manufacturer...
--
Joost
Get off your high horse. If I wouldn't of said 'that makes perfect fucking
sense, ' what I was trying to convey wouldn't have had the emotion it
needed. 'That makes perfect sense' seems to 'off-hand,' without any real
feeling to the statement. What it really says is 'that doesn't make any
sense, bu
walt wrote:
On 01/12/2011 04:17 PM, Dale wrote:
I just learned a long time ago to never say I am done with anything.
> We never know what will happen that makes us go back and fix something
> else.
I distinctly remember declaring "There! I'm done with my 1982 tax
return!"
BIG mistake :(
On Thursday 13 January 2011 01:02:30 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 02:35 on Thursday 13 January 2011,
> Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011 23:22:12 Jacob Todd wrote:
> > > That makes perfect fucking sense.
> >
> > Would you please not use gra
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 23:57:32 Grant Edwards wrote:
> I checked both "us english" and "world english" versions.
Neither of which is acceptable in UK, the home of English. Not to me, at
any rate.
Colonials all...
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
On Thursday 13 January 2011 00:00:53 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > If you'd asked that 10 or 20 years ago, the answer, as far as
> > booting is concerned, would have been "exactly the same as now".
>
> So we don't have new and faster processors? Larger hard drives?
> Faster DVD type med
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2011-01-13, Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:32:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
That was my point earlier. With computers changing, nothing will ever
be finished. There will always be something that has to be added in as
new things co
On Thursday 13 January 2011 00:17:42 Dale wrote:
> They always improving things on puters.
Well, changing them, anyway.
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:57 on Thursday 13 January 2011, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
> Citations?
You want me to quote another assumed authority when I can just quote the one
that's already inside my head?
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:13 on Thursday 13 January 2011, Nuno J.
Silva did opine thusly:
> Dale writes:
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:32:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >>> That was my point earlier. With computers changing, nothing will ever
> >>> be finished. There w
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:32 on Thursday 13 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > grub cannot be complete as there are always new file systems and boot
> > methods that could be added.
>
> That was my point earlier. With computers changing, nothing will ever
>
Nuno J. Silva wrote:
At least in UNIX-like systems, one can always have a separate /boot in
ext2, and use other filesystem everywhere else. It makes a grub update
less urgent.
Also, if they change - again - the way hard drives are accessed, just
because some "oh, 8GiB is so big, no disk will eve
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:32:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
That was my point earlier. With computers changing, nothing will ever
be finished. There will always be something that has to be added in as
new things come out. I still wonder where computers will be in say 10
or 20 ye
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:32:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
> That was my point earlier. With computers changing, nothing will ever
> be finished. There will always be something that has to be added in as
> new things come out. I still wonder where computers will be in say 10
> or 20 years.
If you'd as
Alan McKinnon wrote:
grub cannot be complete as there are always new file systems and boot methods
that could be added.
That was my point earlier. With computers changing, nothing will ever
be finished. There will always be something that has to be added in as
new things come out. I
That makes perfect fucking sense.
On Jan 12, 2011 6:18 PM, "Alan McKinnon" wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 00:42 on Thursday 13 January 2011, Grant
> Edwards did opine thusly:
>
>> On 2011-01-12, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:33:02 +, Stroller wrote:
>> >> > No lon
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:42 on Thursday 13 January 2011, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
> On 2011-01-12, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:33:02 +, Stroller wrote:
> >> > No longer updated can mean broken, but it can also mean finished.
> >>
> >> Boot to BTFS filesy
On Tuesday 11 January 2011 15:18:53 Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:51, Dale wrote:
> > walt wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2011 01:37 PM, Dale wrote:
> >>> pk wrote:
> On 2011-01-10 14:05, walt wrote:
> You guys may be losing interest in grub2, but I'm having fun, so...
> >>
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:51, Dale wrote:
> walt wrote:
>
>> On 01/10/2011 01:37 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> pk wrote:
>>>
On 2011-01-10 14:05, walt wrote:
You guys may be losing interest in grub2, but I'm having fun, so...
>
>> Although I've not been involved in this discus
walt wrote:
On 01/10/2011 01:37 PM, Dale wrote:
pk wrote:
On 2011-01-10 14:05, walt wrote:
You guys may be losing interest in grub2, but I'm having fun, so...
Although I've not been involved in this discussion I still enjoy your
progress (I've been meaning to try out grub2 myself since gru
pk wrote:
On 2011-01-10 14:05, walt wrote:
You guys may be losing interest in grub2, but I'm having fun, so...
Although I've not been involved in this discussion I still enjoy your
progress (I've been meaning to try out grub2 myself since grub1 is
basically EOLed but haven't had the
On 2011-01-10 14:05, walt wrote:
> You guys may be losing interest in grub2, but I'm having fun, so...
Although I've not been involved in this discussion I still enjoy your
progress (I've been meaning to try out grub2 myself since grub1 is
basically EOLed but haven't had the time yet)... please c
On Jan 9, 2011 8:11 PM, "Peter Humphrey" wrote:
>
> On Sunday 09 January 2011 22:54:14 walt wrote:
> > The result was a brain-dead booting scheme which has been holding
> > back the Intel/x86 world to this very day. (But they all made a
> > huge bundle of cash along the way.)
>
> Capitalism? Gree
On Sunday 09 January 2011 22:54:14 walt wrote:
> This mess goes back to IBM's decision to use the Intel 8086 CPU in
> their shiny new PC
What? Little-endian hardware? Crackers: backwards thinking, which
Americans seem to me to be prone to. And yes, I did spend two years
working in Minneapolis 2
On Sunday 09 January 2011 23:26:38 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:50 on Sunday 09 January 2011, walt did
>
> opine thusly:
> > On 01/09/2011 12:04 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > grub2 now looks like GNU/grub (sarcasm intended). It's not a
> > > bootloader, it's a puny OS
On Sunday 09 January 2011 21:26:38 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:50 on Sunday 09 January 2011, walt did
>
> opine thusly:
> > On 01/09/2011 12:04 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > grub2 now looks like GNU/grub (sarcasm intended). It's not a
> > > bootloader, it's a puny OS
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:50 on Sunday 09 January 2011, walt did
opine thusly:
> On 01/09/2011 12:04 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > grub2 now looks like GNU/grub (sarcasm intended). It's not a bootloader,
> > it's a puny OS with one extra feature - it can bootload!
>
> You remember the vi
walt wrote:
On 01/09/2011 04:10 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:44 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale
did
opine thusly:
I have not tried grub2 yet but I did fine these:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Grub2
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Grub2
http://grub.enbug.org
29 matches
Mail list logo
