Profile    Comments    Submissions    Friends & Fans    RSS   
Read c0t0d0s0's comments via RSS: RSS
RE[2]: Another Revolution *Poof* (posted 2009-11-23 19:44:18)
Score: 1
1 response(s), 1 in thread
Attached to: IBM Halts Future Cell Development
RE[6]: Power7? (posted 2009-11-23 19:34:44)
Score: 1
Attached to: IBM Halts Future Cell Development
RE: Great Points, Except.... (posted 2009-11-08 19:58:42)
Score: 1
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE: Great Points, Except.... (posted 2009-11-08 17:59:32)
Score: 1
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE[4]: It sounds like... (posted 2009-11-08 12:57:07)
Score: 1
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE[6]: Contradictory post... (posted 2009-11-07 19:46:00)
Score: 2
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE[3]: Contradictory post... (posted 2009-11-07 18:07:28)
Score: 2
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE[4]: Contradictory post... (posted 2009-11-07 18:03:55)
Score: 1
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE[4]: Contradictory post... (posted 2009-11-07 18:02:07)
Score: 2
1 response(s), 2 in thread
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE: Contradictory post... (posted 2009-11-07 15:32:29)
Score: 4
1 response(s), 2 in thread
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE[2]: Contradictory post... (posted 2009-11-07 13:55:26)
Score: 1
1 response(s), 5 in thread
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'
RE: It sounds like... (posted 2009-11-07 13:51:26)
Score: 1
1 response(s), 4 in thread
Attached to: 'No, ZFS Really Doesn't Need a fsck'