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