From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel =?utf-8?q?Weism=C3=BCller?= To: documentation@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Wiki - doku Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:42:53 +0000 Message-ID: <323555bf3d77dbf16e65eda6acb9c0eb@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2512651211735747432==" List-Id: --===============2512651211735747432== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi tulpenknicker, you are having this conversation in a way and tone that we do not support her= e. Therefore, I would not normally reply to your email at all! However, I did take the time to read the Wiki articles you linked to. I did t= his not for you but for the author of the pages. Even if you don't like the a= nswer, I think the articles are fine. I think Jon has done a good job here. If you think you can do it better, you are free to write appropriate articles. The wiki is not exclusively for IT infrastructure admins. Therefore it is nec= essary to describe things in a simple way so that it can also be used by user= s with less background knowledge. Someone with more background knowledge does= n't need to read it.=20 - Daniel 28. Mai 2021 17:24, "Michael Tremer" schrieb: > Hello, >=20 >> On 28 May 2021, at 13:56, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote: >>=20 >> Thank you for taking the time to reply >>=20 >>> Without having looked at >>=20 >> Excuse, the whole story is at a stage i dont wanna read such thing. You ca= n have what ever opinion >> you like;-) But without reading first whats going on its senseless to talk= about. >=20 > If you would have read on, you would have realised that I did read your con= versation and the page. >=20 >>> Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> Iam not aware that i said such. >=20 > What else is your point then? You are just discrediting other people=E2=80= =99s work without offering an > alternative. >=20 >>> everything that has to be done in simple steps >>=20 >> I see one day its to much and you delete( i do not talk about the old ones= ) wiki entrys next day >> its meaningfull ;-) >>=20 >>> I do not see why this is urgent. >>=20 >> From my POV thats one of the most problems(given informations related) you= fight with. No one cares >> if there are tons of horrible wrong or dangerous suggestion in the forum. = If we talk about the >> wiki, and its not urgent for you that all whats written there should be in= the best way true and >> meaningfull --> Houston we have a problem... >=20 > I, for myself, decide what is urgent to me. This is absolutely not urgent a= t all. I have a job and > a thousand other things to do. Instead I am wasting my time here having a c= onversation that is > going nowhere=E2=80=A6 >=20 > You can contribute anything that would improve the documentation, but telli= ng me that some things > are =E2=80=9Cnot good enough=E2=80=9D. That is just winging and not being w= illing to change anything yourself. >=20 >>> help me to understand your point >>=20 >> My point is, if someone said again and again iam no expert, and someone at= least mean to know that >> is wrong what he think, and then also a tons have watch this and proofed b= efore, then its for me >> lately here the perfect time, have to think if iam wrong or not. But i don= t saw this that he react >> in such way. All what i "read" is for me. I dont read, i do this for all. = I "read" because its good >> for me and correct, it must be good and correct for all others. >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t understand what you are trying to say. >=20 >>> But there must have been a need for it that it was created >>=20 >> If it already there you must not repeat it. You only train the people, we = are so glad that you was >> able to find the way to the wiki. Now we think you can not find the inform= ations you need. >> Therefore we decide we repeat it here and there, just to make sure you can= find it. Please let us >> know if we also need to mark which button you must press. >>=20 >>> recommend to have any conversation in public >>=20 >> But you have not the right to open a private conversation to the masses, w= ithout permission. I want >> remember we live here in Germany and dont behave like the cowboys do. For = me it makes no diffrence >> if i talk about flowers or whatever. If i decide to to this in a private m= anner, then have it to >> stay private. Here is for me no room for wishes, meanings, opinions to beh= ave diffrent. >=20 > This is an *Open* Source project. Open means open. We do everything in the = open. There might be a > reason to do things in private, but this isn=E2=80=99t it. >=20 > You shouldn=E2=80=99t have said these things to someone in private, just be= cause that privacy makes you > feel safe. It=E2=80=99s abusive and we are getting enough of these things t= hat my tolerance level is very > very small about it. >=20 > I take your =E2=80=9Ccowboys=E2=80=9D comment as an abusive slide. >=20 >> For me here(my first post in the list here) starts the conversation from n= ew. >>=20 >> You "have"/can only a few things (to) do. >=20 > LOL. No. >=20 >> Answer for yourself if you now love too much information (picture book) ag= ain, or is it how you >> think in the past. >=20 > I think I have answered that in my last email. >=20 >> Is DMZ Pinhole true or wrong (False information is worse than none, or is = blue green pinhole now >> after a decade? Just to be sure, i still only interested whats true. I don= t care if something >> changes. >> If "enough" have read this frustrating PRIVATE conversation(discourse) bet= ween me and Jon, close it >> as i already told you. >> And the most important part, you must from my POV decide for which person = you create this hot cool >> IPFire. Have you done for the people who have understand that you need a "= little" bit time to >> understand how the things work. Or do you just dont care, and you only wis= h the people to help to >> setting up IPFire but still have no idea what's going on. >=20 > I think we all know very well at whom IPFire is aimed at. Not everyone will= agree with everything > we are doing here and I am not looking for that. For those people, there mi= ght be alternatives. >=20 > I am very happy with the documentation that Jon has been maintaining and I = think there is no basis > for your criticism. >=20 > -Michael >=20 >> regards >>=20 >> 28. Mai 2021 11:33, "Michael Tremer" schrieb: >>=20 >>> Good Morning, >>>=20 >>> Great to see some activity on this list again. >>=20 >> On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote: >>=20 >> I have the urgent need to address the following things that are currently = bothering me. The current >> development of the wiki does not give me much pleasure. I have already bee= n in contact with the >> author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extreme= ly wrong balance between >> having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recogn= ized as a picture book or >> "idiot guide" on the other hand. >> Furthermore there is a discrepancy of understanding. Either I am totally w= rong or the author is. >> Whereby I would like the latter more ;-) >>> Well, first of all I will have to calm you down. Without having looked at= what you are actually >>> referring to, I am sure the author meant well and had a reason why they w= anted to add a page on a >>> certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all = the things on that page, >>> but others might not. >>>=20 >>> Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t = how we should treat each other here. >>=20 >> It is about the definition DMZ Pinhole. My understanding is that this is u= sed regardless of whether >> orange is involved or not, i.e. if you want to get from one isolated, sepa= rate network to the next, >> that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole. >>=20 >> Therefore he created/changed the pages >>=20 >> https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/default-policy >>=20 >> https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/accesstoblue >>=20 >> And created a "picture book". The only thing that is "missing" is the mark= ing of which key to >> press... >>=20 >> https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/rules/bg-holes >>> Technically, I think this is a very good page. It explains everything tha= t has to be done in simple >>> steps and you can check every time if you did exactly what was recommende= d. For beginners, or even >>> people who are not very familiar with IPFire, this is very helpful inform= ation. I do not see any >>> problems here. >>>=20 >>> Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how t= o create a firewall rule >>> is a different question. >>=20 >> Urgent clarification is requested on my part. >>> I do not see why this is urgent. It might be important, but probably not = urgent. >>=20 >> As it looks to me the author only promotes a new generation of copy and pa= ste professionals. It >> seems to me that he has only considered that he wants to help everyone. Wh= at this can cause is not >> considered. The style how the whole was formulated rounds it then down. It= reminds me somehow a >> small child to motivate and to hold out to the end. We're almost there...j= ust this...hang in >> there.... >> I may be too dogged about the latter. Probably I'm just too old ;-) >>> Well, this is a wiki. It is supposed to be like this. It is not for peopl= e who already know this. >>> They, by definition, won=E2=80=99t need it. >>=20 >> What annoys me most about the whole story is the fact that this informatio= ns are many years written >> and has already been changed several times. So already many have looked ov= er the Doku. Regardless >> of whether one is now right with something or not, if someone brings forwa= rd an objection then at >> least for me the absolute logical consequence is that this must be discuss= ed! Until its resolved! >> If necessary you ask someone else to join the party to provide who has the= re now right. To change >> it anyway with the words ~ "I have not understood that way, that has nothi= ng to do with it for me" >> does not make it automatically right for all others. This train of thought= is totally alien to me >> and also completely unacceptable! >>> Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like t= he page. Okay. >>>=20 >>> But there must have been a need for it that it was created in the first p= lace. Maybe someone asked >>> a question somewhere and it was realised that this information was missin= g or simply not clear >>> enough where people were expecting to find it. Adding this page solves a = problem. >>>=20 >>> What would be your proposal for a solution? >>=20 >> It is important to me that the whole thing is not understood as pure criti= cism. My only interest is >> whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary. >>> I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit = angry in this email, and I >>> cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be angry. :) >>>=20 >>> I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever= their skill level) will >>> need to run IPFire. >>>=20 >>> I am sure Jon does too, and I appreciate all his work his is putting in. >>=20 >> The only reason why I post it here publicly is because there was no progre= ss in the conversation >> between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before this step, ga= ve me the advice to ask >> here. >>> Well, I can only recommend to have any conversation in public. There is t= his list, and there is an >>> extra section on community.ipfire.org (they are probably very redundant). >>>=20 >>> Best, >>> -Michael >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Documentation mailing list >> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org >> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Documentation mailing list > Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org > https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation --===============2512651211735747432==--