was (RE: ispell findings...) now...making changes

[Chanh Ong]

I thought it was a minor request which turn is not!

OK, JJ don't rub it in!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 2:04 PM
> To: Chanh Ong
> Cc: Bill S; allen; Andrew Higgins; hardware at scn.org; scna-board at scn.org;
> excom at scn.org; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: was (RE: ispell findings...) now...making changes
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Chanh Ong wrote:
> 
> > Thanks to Bob H. has done most of the research, and there are no
> > major objection from the group.  I have enable the ispell this week.
> 
> ** I OBJECTED!! **  (For the reason that ispell was _not_ tested--see
> below.)  So what should I do next time to register a complaint?
> (By the way, Bob did _not_ test, nor did he claim to have tested.  He
> researched some specific points.  Which is more than anyone else did.)
> 
> Chanh:  have you learned any lessons from this?  
> 
> Allen and everyone else:  TESTING IS _NOT_ LUXURY.  There are some
> things that have to be done right, and it has nothing to do with
> "protecting state secrets".  There are many things which, IF NOT DONE
> RIGHT, SHOULD NOT BE DONE AT ALL!  
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> > [...]
> > > On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, allen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Chanh.  we do not have state secrets to 
> protect...nor the
> > > > luxury of a big budget for testing...or lots of expert 
> bodies for doing
> > > > the testing.  In the meantime...our users are the ones who are
> > > suffering...
> > > > and I thought THEY were why we are here!
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Chanh Ong wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:38:56 -0700
> > > > > From: Chanh Ong <chanh at scn.org>
> > > > > To: hardware at scn.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: ispell findings...
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Bob has done enough testing and I also done some
> > > testing my and
> > > > > I have not run across any more issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have any specific reason, let hear it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-hardware at scn.org
> > > [mailto:owner-hardware at scn.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > > John Johnson
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 1:48 AM
> > > > > To: hardware at scn.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: ispell findings...
> > > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Chanh Ong wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If I do not recieve any objection in a week, I will assume it
> > > > > will be put in for Freeport user to have a better speller.
> > > >
> > > > WRONG APPROACH!  We need to _determine_ whether that is a
> > > > suitable thing
> > > > to do.  It needs to be TESTED.  (And I mean _tested_, not
> > > > just played
> > > > around with a little while.)  If we are not going to do
> > > > this properly, > > > > then I object to putting it in.
> > > >
> > > > === JJ =====================================================
> 
> 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END