"Rick Pali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that anyone's trying to flame anyone at all, but I can't
[the rest is missing]
???
> ... might it not be a good idea to ask to be apprised of the situation
> before accusing the very people who make all this possible of
> being "completely unconscionably rash."
Erm? Regardless of when I found out, it remains a fact that to release
non-beta software to the general public without a thorough testing *is* a rash
act.
> And even when a single problem has occurred, there was a fix within a
> day or two.
Yeah. But with spectacular showstopper bugs, that is still locking the barn
door after the horses have escaped. Spectacular showstopper bugs shouldn't
ever make it into a release product... testing (alpha or beta) should be able
to catch all of those.
> I don't think that he deserves to be called to the carpet for it so
> long after the fact.
>From my point of view, it isn't "long after the fact". It was yesterday.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
