Not too impressed with the quality of F14 at this time

[David]

On 9/12/2010 12:34 AM, Phil Savoie wrote:
> On 12/09/10 12:09 AM, David wrote:
>> On 9/11/2010 11:44 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>>>  On 09/11/2010 11:27 PM, David wrote:
>>>> Wow! That is a large number of problems. Perhaps if you go away again
>>>> and then come back in, say, another month or two, perhaps three, these
>>>> problems will be all be worked out by others that actually do the
>>>> testing and everything will be to your liking.
>>> David, I've been one of the people "that actually do the testing" for
>>> many years.
>>>
>>> There are 1,085 bugs at bugzilla.redhat.com that were reported by me.
>>> It's probably not true any more, but at one point I had reported more
>>> bugs against Red Hat Linux (take note, before Fedora existed) than
>>> anyone who wasn't an employee of Red Hat.
>>>
>>> I don't know whether you report bugs into bugzilla under multiple email
>>> addresses, but if not, then I note with some interest that, in contrast,
>>> there are a grand total of /four/ bugs in bugzilla reported by
>>> dgboles at gmail.com.
>>>
>>> I have a "Red Hat Beta Team" T shirt. Do you? Just curious.
>>>
>>> It is also worth noting that many of the bugs I've reported have patches
>>> attached to them... also submitted by me.
>>>
>>> It is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which your response to me is
>>> appropriate or one in which you are someone who in a position to
>>> legitimately speak to me that way. Frankly, that would be true if my
>>> previous message was the first I'd ever sent to this mailing list and I
>>> had never submitted a bug to bugzilla. There is nothing to gain from
>>> responding with such rudeness and hostility to legitimate feedback.
>>>
>>> I hope you can pry your foot out of your mouth for long enough to
>>> apologize to the entire list for the way you just spoke to me. If not, I
>>> will have no choice but to defend myself on the list by resending this
>>> message to it rather than privately to you. I'd imagine that an
>>> apparently unsolicited apology from you for speaking inappropriately to
>>> someone who was trying to help would be a lot less humiliating to you
>>> than for everyone to see this message.
>>>
>>>   Jonathan Kamens
>>>
>>
>> A personal email that complains of my 'attack'?  :-)  You, personally,
>> perhaps did not deserve what I considered as a satirical reply to a
>> 'whine' type post. That was the impression that I got from your post. A
>> 'whine'.
>>
>> I will accept your claim of a long history as a tester on your word. Why
>> not since I don't really care? As well as your claim of a long history
>> as a bug reporter. Again why not since I don't really care?
>>
>> I can understand that these supposed problems are important to you.
>> Notice the 'to you'. But since no one else seems to have reported them
>> just how would you expect that these might have been fixed when only you
>> seem to have these problems and you have:
>>
>> /quote/
>>
>> (I've been unsubscribed for a month or so because of other business
>> consuming all my time, so forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse.)
>>
>> /unquote/
>>
>> But you are correct. I should have just ignored your 'whine' post.
>>
>> Fair enough?
>>
>> Have a nice day.
> 
> I wonder, when going through doorways, David, if you have a hard time
> scraping what appears to be a very large head without doing damage to
> your ears?
> 
> Jonathan was right your answer was entirely inappropriate.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day.


Why thanks. You have one too Phil.


-- 


  David