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 10:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4432823430663185177==" List-Id: --===============4432823430663185177== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good Morning, Great to see some activity on this list again. > 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 b= othering me. The current development of the wiki does not give me much pleasu= re. I have already been in contact with the author about this. I'm especially= concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between having enou= gh pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized as a pict= ure book or "idiot guide" on the other hand.=20 > Furthermore there is a discrepancy of understanding. Either I am totally wr= ong 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 wha= t you are actually referring to, I am sure the author meant well and had a re= ason why they wanted to add a page on a certain topic. That might not be nece= ssary for you, because you know all the things on that page, but others might= not. Just blaming people for writing =E2=80=9Cnonsense=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t how = we should treat each other here. > It is about the definition DMZ Pinhole. My understanding is that this is us= ed regardless of whether orange is involved or not, i.e. if you want to get f= rom one isolated, separate network to the next, that's a DMZ pinhole for me. = For the author it is a blue green pinhole.=20 >=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 marki= ng 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 that ha= s 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 information. I do not see any problems her= e. Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to cr= eate a firewall rule is a different question. > Urgent clarification is requested on my part. I do not see why this is urgent. It might be important, but probably not urge= nt. > As it looks to me the author only promotes a new generation of copy and pas= te professionals. It seems to me that he has only considered that he wants to= help everyone. What this can cause is not considered. The style how the whol= e 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...just 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 people wh= o already know this. They, by definition, won=E2=80=99t need it. > What annoys me most about the whole story is the fact that this information= s are many years written and has already been changed several times. So alrea= dy many have looked over the Doku. Regardless of whether one is now right wit= h something or not, if someone brings forward an objection then at least for = me the absolute logical consequence is that this must be discussed! Until its= resolved! If necessary you ask someone else to join the party to provide wh= o has there now right. To change it anyway with the words ~ "I have not under= stood that way, that has nothing to do with it for me" does not make it autom= atically right for all others. This train of thought is totally alien to me a= nd also completely unacceptable! Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the p= age. Okay. But there must have been a need for it that it was created in the first place= . Maybe someone asked a question somewhere and it was realised that this info= rmation was missing or simply not clear enough where people were expecting to= find it. Adding this page solves a problem. What would be your proposal for a solution? > It is important to me that the whole thing is not understood as pure critic= ism. 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 angr= y in this email, and I cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be an= gry. :) I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever the= ir skill level) will need to run IPFire. I am sure Jon does too, and I appreciate all his work his is putting in. > The only reason why I post it here publicly is because there was no progres= s in the conversation between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked b= efore this step, gave me the advice to ask here. Well, I can only recommend to have any conversation in public. There is this = list, and there is an extra section on community.ipfire.org (they are probabl= y very redundant). Best, -Michael > _______________________________________________ > Documentation mailing list > Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org > https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation --===============4432823430663185177==--