RE: FC2 test2 is a BAD joke

[Ernest L. Williams Jr.]

________________________________

From: fedora-test-list-bounces(a)redhat.com on behalf of Robert P. J. Day
Sent: Tue 3/30/2004 6:59 AM
To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
Subject: Re: FC2 test2 is a BAD joke





On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Douglas Furlong wrote:

>  On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 09:55, Manu Abraham wrote: 
>  > It is not just the developer alone. Consider the people who
> download
>  > the ISO's over relatively slow links and try it on their machines,
>  > just to find their data just vanished. 
>  I seem to sense a level of sarcasm in this particular sentence.
>
>  These people that are downloading a test release over an extremely slow
>  link would have to have a fairly large desire to use a test release. for
>  what ever reason. I would have thought they would do this knowing that
>  it was a test release and as such may not work for every one. 
i have some sympathy with mr. abraham in this instance.  there's nothing
wrong with bugs in a beta/test release, and everyone realizes that.  so we
download it, install it, test it, find bugs, and keep updating as those
bugs get shaken out.

but all of that assumes you can get the software onto your machine in the
first place.  this suggests that, more than anything else, the
installation procedure has to be flogged pretty hard before getting out
the door to make sure it works.

it's one thing to help test software once you get it onto your system.
it's somewhat more serious to not even be able to get it onto your system
to begin with, which goes a certain distance in explaining some folks'
frustration level.

======================================================================

Sorry, I won't be so nice.

I see this as plain negligence!! 

Who is in charge of Q/A??

And don't give the excuse that this is a test release, I am tired of hearing that
excuse.

=======================================================================

 



rday

p.s. it's for precisely that reason that i asked previously, will there
be a respin once this issue is resolved?  under the circumstances, i don't
see how there can't be.  just my $0.02 canadian.  (which, these days, is
getting dangerously close to being $0.02 US. :-)


--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

FC2 test2 is a BAD joke

[Lamar Owen]

[I may regret this, but.....]
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 07:47 am, Williams Jr, Ernest L. wrote:
>  Sorry, I won't be so nice.
>  I see this as plain negligence!!
>  Who is in charge of Q/A?? 
We are. You don't like that?  Unsubscribe from this list.  [Note: I do not 
work for Red Hat.  I do however use Fedora Core in production on critical 
systems and have a great interest in seeing Core 2 be the best that it can 
be.  Useless rants don't help Fedora be the best it can be.]

>  And don't give the excuse that this is a test release, I am tired
> of
>  hearing that excuse. 
Then don't try to install a test release.  Wait on the official release.

I am tired of hearing from people who apparently have no business attempting 
to install a test release.  Test releases are not for newbies and they are 
not for the faint of heart or for the quick to anger.  They are for the 
patient.  If you are not patient do not install the test releases.

Ok, so it didn't install.  Do something useful:
1.)	File a Bugzilla report with your exact hardware, the exact procedure, and 
all those nice things that Bugzilla asks you for.  Be sure to search on 
various terms for the bug you are describing; spend a little time to save the 
developers some time and make them more productive.  Duplicate bugs yeild 
less developer productivity.  After all, you are installing the test to help 
the developers, right?

2.)	If you don't know how to use Red Hat's bugzilla, then learn how to use Red 
Hat's bugzilla before you throw a useless rant onto an already crowded 
mailing list.  Continue throwing useless reports on the list and you will 
find your way into people's killfiles (so that they will simply not see your 
postings).  Perhaps I may be in some people's killfiles already, but I 
digress... :-)

3.)	Remember rule number one: if it isn't in bugzilla, then it isn't a bug.  
You find a bug; you get to file it.  You don't want to spend the time to file 
it?  Don't go bug hunting.  Installing the test release is implicit 
confirmation that you intend to go bug hunting; ergo, if you don't want that 
responsibility, don't install the test.  Pretty simple, no?

4.)	If it eats your data, it is your fault for installing it.  The 
announcement is plain and clear (and inimitably funny, thanks to some, ah, 
'Interesting' humor interjected by Bill N.); do not install on a machine on 
which you care about the data.  You ignore that warning at your own peril; if 
you don't like that, then don't install the test.

5.) 	If you can, investigate what went wrong.  Start checking various pieces 
of hardware; as an example, I had a machine with a generic 52x CDROM, and 
needed to install Win98.  I was using the CD that came with the box, which is 
a Dell.  The CD drive was not original; the original drive had broken.  The 
install went smoothly up to the first reboot, at which point Win98 gave the 
wonderfully helpful 'Windows Protection Error' screen.  Mind you, this is 
after all the files have been copied off the CD.  The short of it is that 
Win98's 32bit IDE driver would not work with that CD-ROM drive (the install 
process uses the real mode driver which works fine); I had to find an older 
drive.  The 52X CD drive works great with Win2k and SuSE 9.0.

6.)	Think before you post acerbic messages to a publicly archived mailing 
list, where it can come back to haunt you.

7.)	If you fail to heed these simple guidelines, understand that your posting 
of trash such as this whole thread is counterproductive and hurts the 
project.  But maybe that's the intention.

For the original poster, you really need to firm up your bug postings.  The 
original posting had way too little detail to help anyone find the bug; how 
can you sanely expect the Red Hat developers to have your exact hardware 
configuration?  Just because you have it doesn't mean anyone else has it.  
Likewise, do you really think Red Hat would release something without ANY 
internal QA into installation?  FC2 Test2 actually does install for some 
people.  The challenge is finding out why it didn't for you, and for a 
developer that doesn't have your hardware to be able to do that you must 
provide a constructive report as to your exact hardware configuration.

You said _IDE_ CDROM a number of times; you do realize that IDE!=IDE, right?  
That is, not all IDE controllers are created equal.  To verify that, check 
the IDE driver source in the kernel.  So the nForce2 IDE controller and the 
Intel 845 IDE controller, to pick two fairly popular examples, might require 
entirely different kernel initialization.  Once initialized, they are still a 
little different and might require different code paths in the driver.  What 
does that mean to you?  It means that it might work on my Pentium 4 with the 
845 and not with your Athlon with the nForce 2.  It would entirely depend 
upon the modules compiled for the BOOT kernel and the initrd that that kernel 
loads; if the right drivers are not there, then 'it no workee!' And since the 
CD boots the BOOT kernel, and the BOOT kernel and the installed kernel are 
compiled differently, then it might install but not reboot!  (I have HAD that 
to happen on my Athlon laptop back in pre-7.something days; there was a code 
optimization that broke pretty badly on the Athlon at that time.  BTW, that 
was when I learned not to install a test release on my production 
hardware.... :-)).

FWIW I intend to install the test on several machines; unfortunately not my 
Athlon laptop (which is my production box) nor my good servers.  I may get 
time to try it on my slightly older AthlonXP box and my socket370 P3-S 1.3G 
box, but probably not on my ServerWorksIII Xeon box (as it's production and 
mission-critical).  Use some common sense; that's all.  Is that too much to 
ask of testers?  

ISTM that Red Hat would have a much smaller headache if they went back to the 
old private beta/public beta scheme.  Not to brag or anything (since I was a 
part of the old private beta team), but Red Hat's private beta program was 
more than a little bit responsible for the solidity of past beta and 
production releases.  Open development is a two-edged sword, and cuts coming 
and a-going.

As to there being a respin, sure, there will be a respin.  It's called test 3.  
Until then, try to find the problem or a workaround.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
[phone]
www.pari.edu

FC2 test2 is a BAD joke

[Christian B. Ellsworth Capo]

Stoping the flame....

FC2T2 installs on both of my testbed machines
a HP vectra PC (i440BX) local and thru NFS install
a OEM, Aopen MOBO/Cel1.7, 512 ram, sis chipset, local and thru NFS
install 



On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 10:42, Lamar Owen wrote:
>  [I may regret this, but.....]
>  On Tuesday 30 March 2004 07:47 am, Williams Jr, Ernest L. wrote:
>  > Sorry, I won't be so nice.
>  > I see this as plain negligence!!
>  > Who is in charge of Q/A??
>  
>  We are. You don't like that?  Unsubscribe from this list.  [Note: I do not 
>  work for Red Hat.  I do however use Fedora Core in production on critical 
>  systems and have a great interest in seeing Core 2 be the best that it can 
>  be.  Useless rants don't help Fedora be the best it can be.]
>  
>  > And don't give the excuse that this is a test release, I am tired of
>  > hearing that excuse.
>  
>  Then don't try to install a test release.  Wait on the official release.
>  
>  I am tired of hearing from people who apparently have no business attempting 
>  to install a test release.  Test releases are not for newbies and they are 
>  not for the faint of heart or for the quick to anger.  They are for the 
>  patient.  If you are not patient do not install the test releases.
>  
>  Ok, so it didn't install.  Do something useful:
>  1.)	File a Bugzilla report with your exact hardware, the exact procedure, and 
>  all those nice things that Bugzilla asks you for.  Be sure to search on 
>  various terms for the bug you are describing; spend a little time to save the 
>  developers some time and make them more productive.  Duplicate bugs yeild 
>  less developer productivity.  After all, you are installing the test to help 
>  the developers, right?
>  
>  2.)	If you don't know how to use Red Hat's bugzilla, then learn how to use Red 
>  Hat's bugzilla before you throw a useless rant onto an already crowded 
>  mailing list.  Continue throwing useless reports on the list and you will 
>  find your way into people's killfiles (so that they will simply not see your 
>  postings).  Perhaps I may be in some people's killfiles already, but I 
>  digress... :-)
>  
>  3.)	Remember rule number one: if it isn't in bugzilla, then it isn't a bug.  
>  You find a bug; you get to file it.  You don't want to spend the time to file 
>  it?  Don't go bug hunting.  Installing the test release is implicit 
>  confirmation that you intend to go bug hunting; ergo, if you don't want that 
>  responsibility, don't install the test.  Pretty simple, no?
>  
>  4.)	If it eats your data, it is your fault for installing it.  The 
>  announcement is plain and clear (and inimitably funny, thanks to some, ah, 
>  'Interesting' humor interjected by Bill N.); do not install on a machine on 
>  which you care about the data.  You ignore that warning at your own peril; if 
>  you don't like that, then don't install the test.
>  
>  5.) 	If you can, investigate what went wrong.  Start checking various pieces 
>  of hardware; as an example, I had a machine with a generic 52x CDROM, and 
>  needed to install Win98.  I was using the CD that came with the box, which is 
>  a Dell.  The CD drive was not original; the original drive had broken.  The 
>  install went smoothly up to the first reboot, at which point Win98 gave the 
>  wonderfully helpful 'Windows Protection Error' screen.  Mind you, this is 
>  after all the files have been copied off the CD.  The short of it is that 
>  Win98's 32bit IDE driver would not work with that CD-ROM drive (the install 
>  process uses the real mode driver which works fine); I had to find an older 
>  drive.  The 52X CD drive works great with Win2k and SuSE 9.0.
>  
>  6.)	Think before you post acerbic messages to a publicly archived mailing 
>  list, where it can come back to haunt you.
>  
>  7.)	If you fail to heed these simple guidelines, understand that your posting 
>  of trash such as this whole thread is counterproductive and hurts the 
>  project.  But maybe that's the intention.
>  
>  For the original poster, you really need to firm up your bug postings.  The 
>  original posting had way too little detail to help anyone find the bug; how 
>  can you sanely expect the Red Hat developers to have your exact hardware 
>  configuration?  Just because you have it doesn't mean anyone else has it.  
>  Likewise, do you really think Red Hat would release something without ANY 
>  internal QA into installation?  FC2 Test2 actually does install for some 
>  people.  The challenge is finding out why it didn't for you, and for a 
>  developer that doesn't have your hardware to be able to do that you must 
>  provide a constructive report as to your exact hardware configuration.
>  
>  You said _IDE_ CDROM a number of times; you do realize that IDE!=IDE, right?  
>  That is, not all IDE controllers are created equal.  To verify that, check 
>  the IDE driver source in the kernel.  So the nForce2 IDE controller and the 
>  Intel 845 IDE controller, to pick two fairly popular examples, might require 
>  entirely different kernel initialization.  Once initialized, they are still a 
>  little different and might require different code paths in the driver.  What 
>  does that mean to you?  It means that it might work on my Pentium 4 with the 
>  845 and not with your Athlon with the nForce 2.  It would entirely depend 
>  upon the modules compiled for the BOOT kernel and the initrd that that kernel 
>  loads; if the right drivers are not there, then 'it no workee!' And since the 
>  CD boots the BOOT kernel, and the BOOT kernel and the installed kernel are 
>  compiled differently, then it might install but not reboot!  (I have HAD that 
>  to happen on my Athlon laptop back in pre-7.something days; there was a code 
>  optimization that broke pretty badly on the Athlon at that time.  BTW, that 
>  was when I learned not to install a test release on my production 
>  hardware.... :-)).
>  
>  FWIW I intend to install the test on several machines; unfortunately not my 
>  Athlon laptop (which is my production box) nor my good servers.  I may get 
>  time to try it on my slightly older AthlonXP box and my socket370 P3-S 1.3G 
>  box, but probably not on my ServerWorksIII Xeon box (as it's production and 
>  mission-critical).  Use some common sense; that's all.  Is that too much to 
>  ask of testers?  
>  
>  ISTM that Red Hat would have a much smaller headache if they went back to the 
>  old private beta/public beta scheme.  Not to brag or anything (since I was a 
>  part of the old private beta team), but Red Hat's private beta program was 
>  more than a little bit responsible for the solidity of past beta and 
>  production releases.  Open development is a two-edged sword, and cuts coming 
>  and a-going.
>  
>  As to there being a respin, sure, there will be a respin.  It's called test 3.  
>  Until then, try to find the problem or a workaround.
>  -- 
>  Lamar Owen
>  Director of Information Technology
>  Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
>  1 PARI Drive
>  Rosman, NC  28772
>  [phone]
>  www.pari.edu 
-- 
Christian B. Ellsworth Capo (k(a)dicec.cl)
Linux Chief Engineer
RedHat Certified Engineer (RHCE)

DICEC Ltda.
Mariano Sanchez Fontecillas 966b, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Mobile [phone]

All Your Base Are Belong To Tux

FC2 test2 is a BAD joke

[Lamar Owen]

On Tuesday 30 March 2004 10:21 am, Christian B. Ellsworth Capo wrote:
>  Stoping the flame.... 
Digging a little deeper in steps, eh? (Stoping is stepwise strip-mining, but 
I'm sure you meant stopping... ;-)). (OT: a man got out of a ticket in the US 
one time due to that misspelling: the sign said 'No Stoping', he stopped at 
the sign, got a ticket, and beat it in court because he was not 'stoping' -- 
that is, strip mining -- in front of the sign.  English is a very broken 
language, no?)

>  FC2T2 installs on both of my testbed machines
>  a HP vectra PC (i440BX) local and thru NFS install
>  a OEM, Aopen MOBO/Cel1.7, 512 ram, sis chipset, local and thru NFS
>  install 
Good news.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
[phone]
www.pari.edu

FC2 test2 is a BAD joke

[Ernest L. Williams Jr.]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 09:42, Lamar Owen wrote:
>  [I may regret this, but.....]
>  On Tuesday 30 March 2004 07:47 am, Williams Jr, Ernest L. wrote:
>  > Sorry, I won't be so nice.
>  > I see this as plain negligence!!
>  > Who is in charge of Q/A??
>  
>  We are. You don't like that?  Unsubscribe from this list.  [Note: I do not 
>  work for Red Hat.  I do however use Fedora Core in production on critical 
>  systems and have a great interest in seeing Core 2 be the best that it can 
>  be.  Useless rants don't help Fedora be the best it can be.] 
I also am interesting in Fedora being the best.  With the tight schedule
wasting time on not getting the installation CDs correct "out of door"
does not make sense.
However, I will rant no more; the points you make below are well taken.
I am proceeding with FC2T2 on more of my test machines and indeed will
use bugzilla.



>  
>  > And don't give the excuse that this is a test release, I am tired of
>  > hearing that excuse.
>  
>  Then don't try to install a test release.  Wait on the official release.
>  
>  I am tired of hearing from people who apparently have no business attempting 
>  to install a test release.  Test releases are not for newbies and they are 
>  not for the faint of heart or for the quick to anger.  They are for the 
>  patient.  If you are not patient do not install the test releases.
>  
>  Ok, so it didn't install.  Do something useful:
>  1.)	File a Bugzilla report with your exact hardware, the exact procedure, and 
>  all those nice things that Bugzilla asks you for.  Be sure to search on 
>  various terms for the bug you are describing; spend a little time to save the 
>  developers some time and make them more productive.  Duplicate bugs yeild 
>  less developer productivity.  After all, you are installing the test to help 
>  the developers, right?
>  
>  2.)	If you don't know how to use Red Hat's bugzilla, then learn how to use Red 
>  Hat's bugzilla before you throw a useless rant onto an already crowded 
>  mailing list.  Continue throwing useless reports on the list and you will 
>  find your way into people's killfiles (so that they will simply not see your 
>  postings).  Perhaps I may be in some people's killfiles already, but I 
>  digress... :-)
>  
>  3.)	Remember rule number one: if it isn't in bugzilla, then it isn't a bug.  
>  You find a bug; you get to file it.  You don't want to spend the time to file 
>  it?  Don't go bug hunting.  Installing the test release is implicit 
>  confirmation that you intend to go bug hunting; ergo, if you don't want that 
>  responsibility, don't install the test.  Pretty simple, no?
>  
>  4.)	If it eats your data, it is your fault for installing it.  The 
>  announcement is plain and clear (and inimitably funny, thanks to some, ah, 
>  'Interesting' humor interjected by Bill N.); do not install on a machine on 
>  which you care about the data.  You ignore that warning at your own peril; if 
>  you don't like that, then don't install the test.
>  
>  5.) 	If you can, investigate what went wrong.  Start checking various pieces 
>  of hardware; as an example, I had a machine with a generic 52x CDROM, and 
>  needed to install Win98.  I was using the CD that came with the box, which is 
>  a Dell.  The CD drive was not original; the original drive had broken.  The 
>  install went smoothly up to the first reboot, at which point Win98 gave the 
>  wonderfully helpful 'Windows Protection Error' screen.  Mind you, this is 
>  after all the files have been copied off the CD.  The short of it is that 
>  Win98's 32bit IDE driver would not work with that CD-ROM drive (the install 
>  process uses the real mode driver which works fine); I had to find an older 
>  drive.  The 52X CD drive works great with Win2k and SuSE 9.0.
>  
>  6.)	Think before you post acerbic messages to a publicly archived mailing 
>  list, where it can come back to haunt you.
>  
>  7.)	If you fail to heed these simple guidelines, understand that your posting 
>  of trash such as this whole thread is counterproductive and hurts the 
>  project.  But maybe that's the intention.
>  
>  For the original poster, you really need to firm up your bug postings.  The 
>  original posting had way too little detail to help anyone find the bug; how 
>  can you sanely expect the Red Hat developers to have your exact hardware 
>  configuration?  Just because you have it doesn't mean anyone else has it.  
>  Likewise, do you really think Red Hat would release something without ANY 
>  internal QA into installation?  FC2 Test2 actually does install for some 
>  people.  The challenge is finding out why it didn't for you, and for a 
>  developer that doesn't have your hardware to be able to do that you must 
>  provide a constructive report as to your exact hardware configuration.
>  
>  You said _IDE_ CDROM a number of times; you do realize that IDE!=IDE, right?  
>  That is, not all IDE controllers are created equal.  To verify that, check 
>  the IDE driver source in the kernel.  So the nForce2 IDE controller and the 
>  Intel 845 IDE controller, to pick two fairly popular examples, might require 
>  entirely different kernel initialization.  Once initialized, they are still a 
>  little different and might require different code paths in the driver.  What 
>  does that mean to you?  It means that it might work on my Pentium 4 with the 
>  845 and not with your Athlon with the nForce 2.  It would entirely depend 
>  upon the modules compiled for the BOOT kernel and the initrd that that kernel 
>  loads; if the right drivers are not there, then 'it no workee!' And since the 
>  CD boots the BOOT kernel, and the BOOT kernel and the installed kernel are 
>  compiled differently, then it might install but not reboot!  (I have HAD that 
>  to happen on my Athlon laptop back in pre-7.something days; there was a code 
>  optimization that broke pretty badly on the Athlon at that time.  BTW, that 
>  was when I learned not to install a test release on my production 
>  hardware.... :-)).
>  
>  FWIW I intend to install the test on several machines; unfortunately not my 
>  Athlon laptop (which is my production box) nor my good servers.  I may get 
>  time to try it on my slightly older AthlonXP box and my socket370 P3-S 1.3G 
>  box, but probably not on my ServerWorksIII Xeon box (as it's production and 
>  mission-critical).  Use some common sense; that's all.  Is that too much to 
>  ask of testers?  
>  
>  ISTM that Red Hat would have a much smaller headache if they went back to the 
>  old private beta/public beta scheme.  Not to brag or anything (since I was a 
>  part of the old private beta team), but Red Hat's private beta program was 
>  more than a little bit responsible for the solidity of past beta and 
>  production releases.  Open development is a two-edged sword, and cuts coming 
>  and a-going.
>  
>  As to there being a respin, sure, there will be a respin.  It's called test 3.  
>  Until then, try to find the problem or a workaround.
>  -- 
>  Lamar Owen
>  Director of Information Technology
>  Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
>  1 PARI Drive
>  Rosman, NC  28772
>  [phone]
>  www.pari.edu 
-- 
Ernest L. Williams Jr. <ernesto(a)ornl.gov&gt;

FC2 test2 is a BAD joke

[Tom Callaway]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 07:47 -0500, Williams Jr, Ernest L. wrote:

>  I see this as plain negligence!!  
I'm sorry. Consider this a refund of all the money you spent on this
test release. :P

I suppose it was inevitable that people would complain once they had
access to all the betas. Betas break, often in weird and mysterious
ways. Red Hat does care, we will do our best to fix the bugs you find
(and file in bugzilla), we don't intentionally ship broken code so that
we can giggle as errors scroll down your screen. Just because its called
a "test" release doesn't make it any less beta.

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat*com> LCA, RHCE 
Red Hat Sales Engineer || Aurora SPARC Linux Project Leader

"The author's mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is
novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present
social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not 
to be published." -- Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"

reboot with FC Core 2 Test 1 & switching to FC Core 2 Test 2 does not work for me, Help with IDEAS?

Everyone:

I have tried this on a 2 desktops with Lite-On and Philips Cd drives and
also a Thinkpad T30.  Both desktops have high-end Gigabyte p4 motherboards
and have never given me the slightest problem.

I can't seem to get yum 2.61 to work, even though it tells me it has
de-installed 2.60 yum it still seems to run though from what I am reading
that makes no difference.

Anyone have any OTHER way I can get this thing to install?

thanks, Lee
mail(a)Lotus-Notes.Net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom 'spot' Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt;
To: <fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: FC2 test2 is a BAD joke


>  On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 07:47 -0500, Williams Jr, Ernest L. wrote:
>
>  > I see this as plain negligence!!
>
>  I'm sorry. Consider this a refund of all the money you spent on this
>  test release. :P
>
>  I suppose it was inevitable that people would complain once they had
>  access to all the betas. Betas break, often in weird and mysterious
>  ways. Red Hat does care, we will do our best to fix the bugs you find
>  (and file in bugzilla), we don't intentionally ship broken code so that
>  we can giggle as errors scroll down your screen. Just because its called
>  a "test" release doesn't make it any less beta.
>
>  ~spot
>  ---
>  Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat*com> LCA, RHCE
>  Red Hat Sales Engineer || Aurora SPARC Linux Project Leader
>
>  "The author's mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is
>  novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present
>  social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not
>  to be published." -- Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"
>
>
>  -- 
>  fedora-test-list mailing list
>  fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe:
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>
>