From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tulpenknicker@disroot.org To: documentation@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Wiki - doku Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 10:45:42 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7840032775016267173==" List-Id: --===============7840032775016267173== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have the urgent need to address the following things that are currently bot= hering me. The current development of the wiki does not give me much pleasure= . I have already been in contact with the author about this. I'm especially c= oncerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between having enough= pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized as a pictur= e book or "idiot guide" on the other hand.=20 Furthermore there is a discrepancy of understanding. Either I am totally wron= g or the author is. Whereby I would like the latter more ;-) 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 fro= m one isolated, separate network to the next, that's a DMZ pinhole for me. Fo= r the author it is a blue green pinhole.=20 Therefore he created/changed the pages https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/default-policy https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/accesstoblue And created a "picture book". The only thing that is "missing" is the marking= of which key to press... https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/rules/bg-holes Urgent clarification is requested on my part. As it looks to me the author only promotes a new generation of copy and paste= professionals. It seems to me that he has only considered that he wants to h= elp everyone. What 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 mo= tivate and to hold out to the end. We're almost there...just this...hang in t= here.... I may be too dogged about the latter. Probably I'm just too old ;-) What annoys me most about the whole story is the fact that this informations = are many years written and has already been changed several times. So already= many have looked over the Doku. Regardless of whether one is now right with = 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 r= esolved! If necessary you ask someone else to join the party to provide who = has there now right. To change it anyway with the words ~ "I have not underst= ood that way, that has nothing to do with it for me" does not make it automat= ically right for all others. This train of thought is totally alien to me and= also completely unacceptable! It is important to me that the whole thing is not understood as pure criticis= m. My only interest is whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false an= d unnecessary.=20 The only reason why I post it here publicly is because there was no progress = in the conversation between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked bef= ore this step, gave me the advice to ask here. --===============7840032775016267173==--