From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: documentation@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Wiki - doku
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 16:24:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CE86371A-A355-469B-BB10-E6B85FC3E465@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <47c9dcb8505be8ebf9b73115c9d33702@disroot.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5276226639285065536=="
List-Id: <documentation.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============5276226639285065536==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

> 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 can=
 have what ever opinion you like;-) But without reading first whats going on =
its senseless to talk about.

If you would have read on, you would have realised that I did read your conve=
rsation and the page.

>> Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D
> Iam not aware that i said such.=20

What else is your point then? You are just discrediting other people=E2=80=99=
s work without offering an alternative.

>> 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)=
 wiki entrys next day its meaningfull ;-)
>=20
>> I do not see why this is urgent.
> 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 sug=
gestion in the forum. If we talk about the wiki, and its not urgent for you t=
hat all whats written there should be in the best way true and meaningfull --=
> Houston we have a problem...

I, for myself, decide what is urgent to me. This is absolutely not urgent at =
all. I have a job and a thousand other things to do. Instead I am wasting my =
time here having a conversation that is going nowhere=E2=80=A6

You can contribute anything that would improve the documentation, but telling=
 me that some things are =E2=80=9Cnot good enough=E2=80=9D. That is just wing=
ing and not being willing to change anything yourself.

>> help me to understand your point
> 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 wat=
ch this and proofed before, then its for me lately here the perfect time, hav=
e 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" becau=
se its good for me and correct, it must be good and correct for all others.

I don=E2=80=99t understand what you are trying to say.

>> 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 a=
re so glad that you was able to find the way to the wiki. Now we think you ca=
n not find the informations you need. Therefore we decide we repeat it here a=
nd there, just to make sure you can find it. Please let us know if we also ne=
ed to mark which button you must press.
>=20
>=20
>> recommend to have any conversation in public
> But you have not the right to open a private conversation to the masses, wi=
thout permission. I want remember we live here in Germany and dont behave lik=
e the cowboys do. For me it makes no diffrence if i talk about flowers or wha=
tever. If i decide to to this in a private manner, then have it to stay priva=
te. Here is for me no room for wishes, meanings, opinions to behave diffrent.

This is an *Open* Source project. Open means open. We do everything in the op=
en. There might be a reason to do things in private, but this isn=E2=80=99t i=
t.

You shouldn=E2=80=99t have said these things to someone in private, just beca=
use that privacy makes you feel safe. It=E2=80=99s abusive and we are getting=
 enough of these things that my tolerance level is very very small about it.

I take your =E2=80=9Ccowboys=E2=80=9D comment as an abusive slide.

> For me here(my first post in the list here) starts the conversation from ne=
w.
>=20
> You "have"/can only a few things (to) do.

LOL. No.

> Answer for yourself if you now love too much information (picture book) aga=
in, or is it how you think in the past.

I think I have answered that in my last email.

> Is DMZ Pinhole true or wrong (False information is worse than none, or is b=
lue green pinhole now after a decade? Just to be sure, i still only intereste=
d whats true. I dont care if something changes.
> If "enough" have read this frustrating PRIVATE conversation(discourse) betw=
een me and Jon, close it as i already told you.
> And the most important part, you must from my POV decide for which person y=
ou create this hot cool IPFire. Have you done for the people who have underst=
and that you need a "little" bit time to understand how the things work. Or d=
o you just dont care, and you only wish the people to help to setting up IPFi=
re but still have no idea what's going on.

I think we all know very well at whom IPFire is aimed at. Not everyone will a=
gree with everything we are doing here and I am not looking for that. For tho=
se people, there might be alternatives.

I am very happy with the documentation that Jon has been maintaining and I th=
ink there is no basis for your criticism.

-Michael

> regards
>=20
> 28. Mai 2021 11:33, "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> 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 be=
en in contact with the
>>> author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extrem=
ely wrong balance between
>>> having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recog=
nized as a picture book or
>>> "idiot guide" on the other hand.
>>> Furthermore there is a discrepancy of understanding. Either I am totally =
wrong 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 =
what you are actually
>> referring to, I am sure the author meant well and had a reason why they wa=
nted to add a page on a
>> certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all t=
he things on that page,
>> but others might not.
>>=20
>> Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t h=
ow we should treat each other here.
>>=20
>>> It is about the definition DMZ Pinhole. My understanding is that this is =
used regardless of whether
>>> orange is involved or not, i.e. if you want to get from one isolated, sep=
arate 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 mar=
king 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 informa=
tion. 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 u=
rgent.
>>=20
>>> As it looks to me the author only promotes a new generation of copy and p=
aste professionals. It
>>> seems to me that he has only considered that he wants to help everyone. W=
hat this can cause is not
>>> considered. The style how the whole was formulated rounds it then down. I=
t reminds me somehow a
>>> small child to motivate and to hold out to the end. We're almost there...=
just 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 informati=
ons are many years written
>>> and has already been changed several times. So already many have looked o=
ver the Doku. Regardless
>>> of whether one is now right with something or not, if someone brings forw=
ard an objection then at
>>> least for me the absolute logical consequence is that this must be discus=
sed! Until its resolved!
>>> If necessary you ask someone else to join the party to provide who has th=
ere now right. To change
>>> it anyway with the words ~ "I have not understood that way, that has noth=
ing to do with it for me"
>>> does not make it automatically right for all others. This train of though=
t is totally alien to me
>>> and also completely unacceptable!
>>=20
>> Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like th=
e page. Okay.
>>=20
>> But there must have been a need for it that it was created in the first pl=
ace. 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 p=
roblem.
>>=20
>> What would be your proposal for a solution?
>>=20
>>> It is important to me that the whole thing is not understood as pure crit=
icism. 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 a=
ngry 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 progr=
ess in the conversation
>>> between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before this step, g=
ave me the advice to ask
>>> here.
>>=20
>> Well, I can only recommend to have any conversation in public. There is th=
is 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


--===============5276226639285065536==--