Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:36:29 -0700
From:      Chad Perrin <>
To:        FreeBSD - <>
Subject:   Re: Date of a FreeBSD installation
Message-ID:  <20110127213629.GA76332@guilt.hydra>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <1294955182.10908.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <> <1294955858.10908.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110127203928.GE75822@guilt.hydra> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 09:09:52PM +0000, Devin Teske wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 13:39 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
> > >=20
> > > You're going to have to resort to things that aren't touched during a
> > > system upgrade if you want to find out the `true' answer as to when t=
> > > box was first ... what? partitioned? newfs'd? clue me in here.
> > >=20
> > > What _is_ the definition of "built" ??? When the hardware pieces were
> > > coalesced into a single chassis? If that's the case, I'd be looking at
> > > model numbers of internal parts.
> >=20
> > I suspect that at this point you are just being pedantic,
> Correct. I get paid to be pedantic. It's a staple of my tenure-track
> position.

Do you get paid to read carefully?  I did not simply say you're being
pedantic.  I said you're *just* being pedantic, which is considerably
less useful or respectable.

> >  and that you
> > know what the question actually means
> Correct. Going back to the OP's e-mail, he indeed clarified that he was
> only interested in the install-date of FreeBSD.
> > ; you just want to dismiss the
> Incorrect and perceptually [unrightly] indignent.


(just being pedantic; pardon me)

If that is not your intent, please enlighten me, because it *still* seems
to be your intended meaning, and this only looks like backpedaling in the
absence of any clarification of intended meaning.

> The above statements (which you've taken out of context) were not to the
> OP but a reply-thread between Chuck Swiger and myself.

=2E . . and yet, they're on the public list, so (it seems) there must be
some desire for them to be consumed by the general readership.  If that
desire is not rooted in an interest in publicly humiliating someone, the
next most likely reason seems to be to make comments in the general
context of the discussion thread hearkening back to the OP.  A third most
likely does not immediately spring to mind.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>