Wiki - doku

Wiki - doku

[tulpenknicker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2805 bytes --]

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 been in contact with the author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized 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 ;-)

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, separate network to the next, that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole. 

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 help 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 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 ;-)

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 resolved! 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 understood that way, that has nothing 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!

It is important to me that the whole thing is not understood as pure criticism. My only interest is whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary. 

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 before this step, gave me the advice to ask here.

Re: Wiki - doku

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5207 bytes --]

Good Morning,

Great to see some activity on this list again.

> On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
> 
> 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 been in contact with the author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized 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 ;-)

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 wanted to add a page on a certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all the things on that page, but others might not.

Just blaming people for writing “nonsense” isn’t how we should treat each other here.

> 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, separate network to the next, that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole. 
> 
> 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

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 information. I do not see any problems here.

Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to create 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 urgent.

> 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 help 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 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 who already know this. They, by definition, won’t need it.

> 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 resolved! 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 understood that way, that has nothing 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!

Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the page. 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 information 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 criticism. My only interest is whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary. 

I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit angry in this email, and I cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be angry. :)

I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever their 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 progress in the conversation between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before 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 probably very redundant).

Best,
-Michael

> _______________________________________________
> Documentation mailing list
> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: Wiki - doku

[tulpenknicker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8673 bytes --]

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

>Just blaming people for writing “nonsense”
Iam not aware that i said such. 

> 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 ;-)

>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 suggestion in the forum. If we talk about the wiki, and its not urgent for you that 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 least 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, without 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 whatever. 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 blue 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) between 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 understand 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" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:

> Good Morning,
> 
> Great to see some activity on this list again.
> 
>> On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
>> 
>> 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 been in contact with the
>> author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between
>> having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized 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 ;-)
> 
> 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 wanted to add a page on a
> certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all the things on that page,
> but others might not.
> 
> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense” isn’t how we should treat each other here.
> 
>> 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, separate network to the next,
>> that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole.
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 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 information. I do not see any
> problems here.
> 
> Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to create 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 urgent.
> 
>> 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 help 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 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 who already know this.
> They, by definition, won’t need it.
> 
>> 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 resolved!
>> 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 understood that way, that has nothing 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!
> 
> Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the page. 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 information 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 criticism. My only interest is
>> whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary.
> 
> I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit angry in this email, and I
> cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be angry. :)
> 
> I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever their 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 progress in the conversation
>> between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before 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 probably very redundant).
> 
> Best,
> -Michael
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Documentation mailing list
>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: Wiki - doku

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10422 bytes --]

Hello,

> On 28 May 2021, at 13:56, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
> 
> 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 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 conversation and the page.

>> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense”
> Iam not aware that i said such. 

What else is your point then? You are just discrediting other people’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 ;-)
> 
>> 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 suggestion in the forum. If we talk about the wiki, and its not urgent for you that 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…

You can contribute anything that would improve the documentation, but telling me that some things are “not good enough”. That is just winging 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 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.

I don’t 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 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, without 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 whatever. 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.

This is an *Open* Source project. Open means open. We do everything in the open. There might be a reason to do things in private, but this isn’t it.

You shouldn’t have said these things to someone in private, just because that privacy makes you feel safe. It’s abusive and we are getting enough of these things that my tolerance level is very very small about it.

I take your “cowboys” comment as an abusive slide.

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

LOL. No.

> Answer for yourself if you now love too much information (picture book) again, 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 blue 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) between 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 understand 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.

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

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

-Michael

> regards
> 
> 28. Mai 2021 11:33, "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:
> 
>> Good Morning,
>> 
>> Great to see some activity on this list again.
>> 
>>> On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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 been in contact with the
>>> author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between
>>> having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized 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 ;-)
>> 
>> 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 wanted to add a page on a
>> certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all the things on that page,
>> but others might not.
>> 
>> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense” isn’t how we should treat each other here.
>> 
>>> 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, separate network to the next,
>>> that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole.
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 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 information. I do not see any
>> problems here.
>> 
>> Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to create 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 urgent.
>> 
>>> 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 help 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 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 who already know this.
>> They, by definition, won’t need it.
>> 
>>> 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 resolved!
>>> 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 understood that way, that has nothing 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!
>> 
>> Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the page. 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 information 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 criticism. My only interest is
>>> whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary.
>> 
>> I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit angry in this email, and I
>> cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be angry. :)
>> 
>> I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever their 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 progress in the conversation
>>> between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before 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 probably very redundant).
>> 
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Documentation mailing list
>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>>> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: Wiki - doku

[Daniel Weismüller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11629 bytes --]

Hi tulpenknicker,

you are having this conversation in a way and tone that we do not support here. Therefore, I would not normally reply to your email at all!

However, I did take the time to read the Wiki articles you linked to. I did this not for you but for the author of the pages. Even if you don't like the answer, I think the articles are fine. I think Jon has done a good job here.

If you think you can do it better, you are free to write appropriate articles.

The wiki is not exclusively for IT infrastructure admins. Therefore it is necessary to describe things in a simple way so that it can also be used by users with less background knowledge. Someone with more background knowledge doesn't need to read it. 

-
Daniel


28. Mai 2021 17:24, "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:

> Hello,
> 
>> On 28 May 2021, at 13:56, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
>> 
>> 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 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 conversation and the page.
> 
>>> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense”
>> 
>> Iam not aware that i said such.
> 
> What else is your point then? You are just discrediting other people’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 ;-)
>> 
>>> 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 suggestion in the forum. If we talk about the
>> wiki, and its not urgent for you that 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…
> 
> You can contribute anything that would improve the documentation, but telling me that some things
> are “not good enough”. That is just winging 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 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.
> 
> I don’t 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 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, without 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 whatever. 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.
> 
> This is an *Open* Source project. Open means open. We do everything in the open. There might be a
> reason to do things in private, but this isn’t it.
> 
> You shouldn’t have said these things to someone in private, just because that privacy makes you
> feel safe. It’s abusive and we are getting enough of these things that my tolerance level is very
> very small about it.
> 
> I take your “cowboys” comment as an abusive slide.
> 
>> For me here(my first post in the list here) starts the conversation from new.
>> 
>> You "have"/can only a few things (to) do.
> 
> LOL. No.
> 
>> Answer for yourself if you now love too much information (picture book) again, 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 blue 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) between 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 understand 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.
> 
> I think we all know very well at whom IPFire is aimed at. Not everyone will agree with everything
> we are doing here and I am not looking for that. For those people, there might be alternatives.
> 
> I am very happy with the documentation that Jon has been maintaining and I think there is no basis
> for your criticism.
> 
> -Michael
> 
>> regards
>> 
>> 28. Mai 2021 11:33, "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:
>> 
>>> Good Morning,
>>> 
>>> Great to see some activity on this list again.
>> 
>> On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
>> 
>> 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 been in contact with the
>> author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between
>> having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized 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 ;-)
>>> 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 wanted to add a page on a
>>> certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all the things on that page,
>>> but others might not.
>>> 
>>> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense” isn’t how we should treat each other here.
>> 
>> 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, separate network to the next,
>> that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole.
>> 
>> 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
>>> 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 information. I do not see any
>>> problems here.
>>> 
>>> Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to create 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 urgent.
>> 
>> 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 help 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 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 who already know this.
>>> They, by definition, won’t need it.
>> 
>> 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 resolved!
>> 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 understood that way, that has nothing 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!
>>> Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the page. 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 information 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 criticism. My only interest is
>> whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary.
>>> I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit angry in this email, and I
>>> cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be angry. :)
>>> 
>>> I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever their 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 progress in the conversation
>> between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before 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 probably very redundant).
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> -Michael
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Documentation mailing list
>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Documentation mailing list
> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: Wiki - doku

[tulpenknicker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15070 bytes --]

Du hast leider nicht ansatzweise verstanden wovon ich rede. Das ist nicht weiter tragisch. Es ging stets nur darum was richtig ist und was falsch und das ich Gewisse Dinge überflüssig finde. Es ging niemals darum das ich die Beiträge nicht gut genug finde. Sondern zu gut im Sinne von viel zu viel, und möglicherweise falsch (pinhole). Was du daraus machst, meinst daraus lesen zu können, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis. Ich habe mehrfach gesagt das mein Englisch beschissen ist. Möglicherweise drücke ich mich total falsch aus oder verstehe es total falsch. 

Tragisch für mich ist letztlich in deiner emotionsbehafteten Antwort nur ein Punkt den du erwähnt hast.

>just because that privacy makes you feel safe

Du hast mich nicht so hinzustellen wie wenn ich meine Antworten verstecken müsste durch eine PM. Darum gehts definitiv nicht. Ich frage mich warum du nicht deine sämtlichen PM veröffentlichst? Ist doch alles open? Und warum veröffentlichst du eigentlich keinen Monatlichen Report wieviel Spendengelder eingegangen sind? Ist doch alles open?!? Ich habe lediglich mein Recht eingefordert das ich in Deutschland als normal betrachte. Menschlich ebenso. Aber bei den Cowboys=Amerika eben in dieser art nicht vorhanden ist. Und nein das hatte nix mit Jon=Usa zu tun. Sondern das man in Deutschland besonderen Wert auf Rechte legt. Ich zumindest, bei dir scheint das anders ausgeprägt.

Belustigung finde ich dadurch das offensichtlich derzeit wieder Bilder angesagt sind aber stets vermieden wird was nun richtig ist und was falsch. DMZ pinhole.

Der 2. Kommentar nach dir war auch lustig. Du hast es leider auch nicht verstanden. Es geht um die gesunde Mittelschicht, weder um Experten die in der Tat das Wiki nicht benötigen aber auch nicht um jemand um den man Befürchtung hat ein Bild auf einmal überfordert das Denkzentrum völlig. Daher teile ich es lieber auf und schreibe sicherheitshalber jeden einzelnen schritt auf.

Und für alle
Ich kann reinen Gewissens sagen das ich nie jemanden beleidigt habe. Zumindest war das nie meine Absicht.

>For those people, there might be alternatives.

So genug geredet, kommen wir zum ende, eingeleitet hast du es ja bereits ;-) Ich gehe davon aus auch darauf gehofft;-) 

Ist ja einfacher alles erst mal schlechte in einem Menschen zu sehen als die eigene Denkblase zu verlassen was das gegenüber vieleicht gemeint hat. Vielleicht denkst du ja mal zukünftig drüber nach ob alle Menschen nur meinen das andere Mist Produzieren oder ob etwas völlig anderes gemeint ist...Falls mal wieder so einer wie ich auftaucht. Und Nein ich werde kein neues Konto eröffnen wie gefühlt hunderte vor mir. Was im übrigen auch keiner zu bemerken scheint ausser mir...
Lasst euch ruhig weiter verarschen von der ganzen Trolls...Was für eine Zeitverschwendung...

Ui, einen habe ich doch noch. Wollte es aufheben für ein zukünftiges release. Erinnerst du dich noch als ich dich fragte das ich es prima finden würde wenn NTP intern umgeleitet wird? Erinnerst du dich noch an deine Antwort? Hihi fand ich niedlich. Du sagtest in etwa sowas wie ich solle die ganzen Firmen anschreiben. Weil die sich ja in China dafür interessieren wenn ich gerne meinen NTP selbst einstellen möchte ;-) Nun arbeitet wer noch mal? irgendwas mit fischer glaube ich schon seit geraumer Zeit daran. Ich konnte nix mehr negatives von dir dazu lesen. Es gibt unzähliger solcher Beispiele, wo ich nie erkennen konnte was den eigentlich deine Meinung ist. Sie änderte sich einfach öfter als ich es gewohnt bin. Liegt sicherlich auch an mir. Dieser Abschnitt nennt man Klartext. Kennt man heute nicht mehr. Nur noch so alte Säcke wie ich. Es hat definitiv keinen beleidigenden Character. Nur für den Notfall falls das wieder nicht verstanden wird. Es ist eine reine Beobachtung meinerseits von vielen die ich nie verstanden habe.

Ich vermisse nichts, ich bereue nichts und vielleicht werde ich weiterhin wieder spenden. Nur fürs Produkt. Ich gehe davon aus zumindest das war verständlich.

Ich fordere dich hiermit auf mein Konto vollständig zu löschen! (people, discourse …) alles was da dran hängt. Und unter vollständig meine ich vollständig! Nicht nur suspendieren.

Danke fürs Produkt an alle.

Besonderen Dank an Peter und Bebima (ohne ihn wäre das ganze Punktesystem nix ;-) )

28. Mai 2021 17:24, "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:

> Hello,
> 
>> On 28 May 2021, at 13:56, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
>> 
>> 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 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 conversation and the page.
> 
>>> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense”
>> 
>> Iam not aware that i said such.
> 
> What else is your point then? You are just discrediting other people’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 ;-)
>> 
>>> 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 suggestion in the forum. If we talk about the
>> wiki, and its not urgent for you that 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…
> 
> You can contribute anything that would improve the documentation, but telling me that some things
> are “not good enough”. That is just winging 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 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.
> 
> I don’t 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 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, without 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 whatever. 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.
> 
> This is an *Open* Source project. Open means open. We do everything in the open. There might be a
> reason to do things in private, but this isn’t it.
> 
> You shouldn’t have said these things to someone in private, just because that privacy makes you
> feel safe. It’s abusive and we are getting enough of these things that my tolerance level is very
> very small about it.
> 
> I take your “cowboys” comment as an abusive slide.
> 
>> For me here(my first post in the list here) starts the conversation from new.
>> 
>> You "have"/can only a few things (to) do.
> 
> LOL. No.
> 
>> Answer for yourself if you now love too much information (picture book) again, 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 blue 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) between 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 understand 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.
> 
> I think we all know very well at whom IPFire is aimed at. Not everyone will agree with everything
> we are doing here and I am not looking for that. For those people, there might be alternatives.
> 
> I am very happy with the documentation that Jon has been maintaining and I think there is no basis
> for your criticism.
> 
> -Michael
> 
>> regards
>> 
>> 28. Mai 2021 11:33, "Michael Tremer" <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:
>> 
>>> Good Morning,
>>> 
>>> Great to see some activity on this list again.
>> 
>> On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker(a)disroot.org wrote:
>> 
>> 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 been in contact with the
>> author about this. I'm especially concerned about what I see as an extremely wrong balance between
>> having enough pictures and information to understand, but not being recognized 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 ;-)
>>> 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 wanted to add a page on a
>>> certain topic. That might not be necessary for you, because you know all the things on that page,
>>> but others might not.
>>> 
>>> Just blaming people for writing “nonsense” isn’t how we should treat each other here.
>> 
>> 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, separate network to the next,
>> that's a DMZ pinhole for me. For the author it is a blue green pinhole.
>> 
>> 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
>>> 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 information. I do not see any
>>> problems here.
>>> 
>>> Whether the page is necessary because the average admin should know how to create 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 urgent.
>> 
>> 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 help 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 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 who already know this.
>>> They, by definition, won’t need it.
>> 
>> 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 resolved!
>> 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 understood that way, that has nothing 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!
>>> Okay, but then please help me to understand your point: You do not like the page. 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 information 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 criticism. My only interest is
>> whether the wiki is correct and meaningful or false and unnecessary.
>>> I understand most of your point. I think you come across as a little bit angry in this email, and I
>>> cannot respond to that. If you want to be angry, be angry. :)
>>> 
>>> I share the goal that the wiki provides all information someone (whatever their 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 progress in the conversation
>> between 4 eyes. And someone from the IPF Team i asked before 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 probably very redundant).
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> -Michael
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Documentation mailing list
>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>> https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: Wiki - doku

[ummeegge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1334 bytes --]

Hi all,
even i can understand more or less all sites of this discussion, the
outcome is a little sad to read. I can find not really a reason which
would it explain why to leave especial if the project is a kind of
hobby (and for some also much) on itself for each of us. The disposal
to help each other via support or with the development of a great
distribution with all it´s infrastructur is, seeing from my
perspective, a very good intend which is in our time simply something
special. There are loads of possibilities to misunderstand each other
or to have fundamental different opinions but i think the respect for
our all work and the respect for one another can handle this easily. I
do need also some times for myself and can/want not work for the
project but i always come back to it and was happy with that.

Dear tulpenknicker :-) , it is for me little sad that you want to leave
since you are also such a guy with the above explained intend and i was
happy to read also about your work and your try to help othes in the
community. I also like your remark about speaking clear text but let me
say, listen to clear text needs sometimes greater inner power to
sustain it then to speak it out only.

May you change you mind, which i hope, and if not i wish you all the
best for your further way.

Best regards to all,

Erik