Sorry about coming late to the conversation, but I've been in all day
meetings for the past couple days; I'm starting to catch up on my mail
now...
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
Mike> How much of what they say is true?
They've got the basic facts just about 100% correct. However, they sure
didn't make any effort to keep the report unemotionally factual, did they?
If this person wrote about somebody drinking a glass of water, it would
read something like:
Then Mike, completely unaware of the situation, drank the water.
Water that, in other situations could cause drowning. The ice cubes --
the exact same substance responsible for sinking the great ship
Titanic, clinked against, the glass. And the glass -- need we state
the risk of injury that can come from broken glass? And despite all
this, Mike had the audacity to say that it "tasted good"...
Hey, that was kinda fun! :-)
...
Mike> Did RedHat act badly by releasing information and a patch before
Mike> others?
I am not directly involved in this part of the company, but I did see
internal mails confirming that a mistake was made, and that the process
used to release patches was being modified to prevent it from happening
again. I also recall a public email stating basically the same thing.
That's what's so annoying about FUD -- the facts are usually correct; it's
just the spin that drives you crazy... :-)
Ed
--
Ed Bailey Red Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
