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@ipfire.org schrieb:
Good Morning,
Great to see some activity on this list again.
On 27 May 2021, at 11:45, tulpenknicker@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@lists.ipfire.org https://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation