From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tulpenknicker@disroot.org To: documentation@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Wiki - doku Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 12:56:39 +0000 Message-ID: <47c9dcb8505be8ebf9b73115c9d33702@disroot.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3442177125407858705==" List-Id: --===============3442177125407858705== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you for taking the time to reply >Without having looked at Excuse, the whole story is at a stage i dont wanna read such thing. You can h= ave what ever opinion you like;-) But without reading first whats going on it= s senseless to talk about. >Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D Iam not aware that i said such.=20 > everything that has to be done in simple steps I see one day its to much and you delete( i do not talk about the old ones) w= iki entrys next day its meaningfull ;-) >I do not see why this is urgent. >>From my POV thats one of the most problems(given informations related) you f= ight with. No one cares if there are tons of horrible wrong or dangerous sugg= estion in the forum. If we talk about the wiki, and its not urgent for you th= at all whats written there should be in the best way true and meaningfull -->= Houston we have a problem... >help me to understand your point My point is, if someone said again and again iam no expert, and someone at le= ast mean to know that is wrong what he think, and then also a tons have watch= this and proofed before, then its for me lately here the perfect time, have = to think if iam wrong or not. But i dont 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. >But there must have been a need for it that it was created 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 informations 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. >recommend to have any conversation in public But you have not the right to open a private conversation to the masses, with= out 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 whate= ver. If i decide to to this in a private manner, then have it to stay private= . Here is for me no room for wishes, meanings, opinions to behave diffrent. For me here(my first post in the list here) starts the conversation from new. You "have"/can only a few things (to) do. Answer for yourself if you now love too much information (picture book) again= , or is it how you think in the past. Is DMZ Pinhole true or wrong (False information is worse than none, or is blu= e green pinhole now after a decade? Just to be sure, i still only interested = whats true. I dont care if something changes. If "enough" have read this frustrating PRIVATE conversation(discourse) betwee= n 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 understan= d that you need a "little" bit time to understand how the things work. Or do = you just dont care, and you only wish the people to help to setting up IPFire= but still have no idea what's going on. regards 28. Mai 2021 11:33, "Michael Tremer" schrieb: > 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 ;-) >=20 > Well, first of all I will have to calm you down. Without having looked at w= hat you are actually > referring to, I am sure the author meant well and had a reason why they wan= ted to add a page on a > certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all th= e things on that page, > but others might not. >=20 > Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t ho= w 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 >=20 > Technically, I think this is a very good page. It explains everything that = has to be done in simple > steps and you can check every time if you did exactly what was recommended.= For beginners, or even > people who are not very familiar with IPFire, this is very helpful informat= ion. I do not see any > problems here. >=20 > Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to = create a firewall rule > is a different question. >=20 >> Urgent clarification is requested on my part. >=20 > I do not see why this is urgent. It might be important, but probably not ur= gent. >=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 ;-) >=20 > Well, this is a wiki. It is supposed to be like this. It is not for people = 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! >=20 > Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the= page. Okay. >=20 > But there must have been a need for it that it was created in the first pla= ce. Maybe someone asked > a question somewhere and it was realised that this information was missing = or simply not clear > enough where people were expecting to find it. Adding this page solves a pr= oblem. >=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. >=20 > I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit an= gry 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 t= heir 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. >=20 > Well, I can only recommend to have any conversation in public. There is thi= s 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 --===============3442177125407858705==--