Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Bodo Eggert
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 5:54 am

Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:


If you don't know about LVM, you don't need it. Do you?
-- 
It's redundant! It's redundant! 

Friß, Spammer: er0q@Cqd.7eggert.dyndns.org rfgnH@Ubk.Gv.7eggert.dyndns.org
 Vmvwh@trxjBn.7eggert.dyndns.org sMezxCpya7@ro.7eggert.dyndns.org
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?, Bodo Eggert, (Tue Jul 3, 5:54 am)
Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?, Robert P. J. Day, (Tue Jul 3, 6:13 am)
Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?, Alasdair G Kergon, (Fri Jul 6, 8:53 am)