For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas.
On 8/3/06, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> wrote:> For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas.For those of us who have neither?> _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
On 8/3/06, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> wrote:> For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas.Would you consider posting it to the wiki to share with all? -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote:> For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas.and who are you ? and what / where is your firewall doc ? - KB -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
On Thursday 03 August 2006 17:13, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote:> For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall > document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version > available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's > changed rather significantly in some areas.Okay... As some of us may never have heard of this document, would it be improper to ask where is might be found ? -arkwolf
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 21:41 -0400, w.arkwolf wrote:> On Thursday 03 August 2006 17:13, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: > > For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall > > document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a newversion> > available. The current version of the document is version 3.1.It's> > changed rather significantly in some areas. > > Okay... As some of us may never have heard of this document, would itbe> improper to ask where is might be found ? > > -arkwolfAs I don't have a site to host it at, I've been offering to e-mail it to people. In the relative near future, the owner of the Firewall Builder web site said that he'd be happy to house a copy there under contributed documents. The copies I offer for e-mail will always be the "freshest", however.> _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- --------------------------------------------------- Frank Tanner III (pctech at mybellybutton.com) ICQ: 1730844 AIM: KalokSundancer MSN: pctech at mybellybutton.com YIM: fbtanner
pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote:> For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas.Cutting to the chase: There is a perfectly good place for you to post such a document. It is called: http://wiki.centos.org/ And in your case: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos I am working up my smb/ldap contribution, but it won't be a big 5meger..... The best way to get a good rep is to make a good contribution. And putting something good on the wiki would seem to be in that classification.
>On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 06:09 -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote: >> There goes YOUR attitude again. I *SPECIFICALLY* stated in my initial >> e-mail "or those of you that either have an older revision of my >> firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new >> version available.". > >That doesn't work in open communities. If you don't provide a link to >the document, such message is useless for the hundreds of active and >passive subscribers to this list. It is important to keep to keep that >in mind when sending a message to such a large list. > >Besides that it often seems better to me to kindly accept critique, than >to attack others (who have contributed an immense amount of work for the >community) on their attitudes. It only creates anger. > >-- Daniel >He didn't ask for a link. He asked who I was and why should he care.>_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>Frank Tanner III wrote: > >> There goes YOUR attitude again. I *SPECIFICALLY* stated in my initial >> e-mail "or those of you that either have an older revision of my >> firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new >> version available.". > >if you want your own private mailing list, go start one. bye bye! If you >are going to post something here, making it meaningful to people who >read the list - is a good thing, and expected from all posters. >It *WAS* meaningful. For the people that it was applicable to. Then people decided that because it wasn't applicable to them that they should flame me. It's attitudes such as this as to why people say, "You can never get good support with Open Source software." I came onto the list trying to be HJELPFUL, and got burnt to the ground instead. JUST like in the forums. I guess they'er right. No good deed goes unpunished. Now I understand why nobody has offered a document like this to the community before. It certainly makes me want to keep all of my future documents to myself. They're OBVIOUSLY only a bother to everyone and nobody wants them.>-K >-- >Karanbir Singh {kbsingh at centos.org} >The CentOS Project, http://www.centos.org/ >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>Frank Tanner III wrote: >> >> My characterization of the community is spot-on with regards to >> the way >> that I have been treated both on the forums and in the mailing >> list >> over-all. >> >> I go out of my way to provide a document that I think might be >> useful to >> others and get nothing but harsh criticism for it. How would >> YOU feel >> if the roles were reversed? I wasn't looking for a "Thank you >> thank you >> for providing a wonderful document.", however I was not looking >> for a >> "You asshole. We have no idea what you are talking about. Piss >> off." >> either. And the latter is what I got. >> >> This whole thing could have been avoided had he either not >> responded at >> all if the message didn't concern him, respond with some USEFUL >> feedback, or apologize for being a jerk to begin with. >> >> As far as the "community" as a whole, go out there and read the >> trade >> publications and the publications that business decision makers >> base >> their decisions about the community on. They all, pretty much, >> say the >> same thing. Open Source is great. The people are not. That's >> what it >> boils down to. >> >> > > >Well, with an attitude like that, I can say that I don't think your >absence on the list will be missed. That's a mighty big chip on your >shoulder. It must be heavy. > >*shrug* >And YOU wouldn't have a big chip on your shoulder if you OFFERED something you worked for many months on up to people and got flamed for your troubles?> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Frank Tanner III wrote: > >> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 13:15 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: >> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Frank Tanner III wrote: >> > >> > > It's no wonder that computer novices want nothing to do with Linux. >> > >> > Maybe Linux wants nothing to do with obnoxious people ? >> > >> > PS How you communicate influences how you are being perceived, and how you > >> > are being perceived incluences how people respond. But if you want to >> > believe everybody who uses CentOS dislikes you, go ahead, nobody is >> > stopping you. >> > >> > Unless you want to believe they are. That's fine too. :) >> >> It's a well known "fact" amongst the general public that the Linux >> "evangelists" are a rude flaming bunch. There are hundreds of news >> articles stating such. An THIS is what the public in general bases >> their attitudes with regards to the community as a whole on. >> >> I communicated clearly and concisely. I didn't say ONE negative thing >> until I got jumped on; or didn't you actually read the thread. > >I agree your initial mail did not say ONE negative thing. But it was not >exactly clear and concise. It failed to reveal any information except >that you wrote a firewall document. >Incorrect. It said, "For those of you that have my firewall document." So its target audience was very clear and concice. In fact, that was the first statement.>What's more you send it to a list where the majority did not know you, nor >your document. That's ok though, nobody is blaming you for that either. IF >you think that was a worthwhile thing to do, that's your choice. > >But as soon as people ask you what the document is abouwhich is the >logical next step if you send a mail to a list that is uninformed), or >a location where you could put it, you started flaming people as if they >wanted to correct you. As if you had to defend yourself. >No. They DIDN'T ask me what my document was about. That asked me who I was and why they should care. There is a HUGE difference. They treated me like I didn't have the RIGHT to speak on the list. I know you by reputation. You are a fantastic package maintainer. How would YOU ahve felt when you first started maintaining packages for the various Linux flavors if every time you tried to introduce what you'd been doing you got flamed down? Because that's EXACTLY what has happened to me. You'd have said, "Piss on it. These guys are nothing but jerks that don't seem to be interested in what I say or what I have to offer. They just want the opportunity to insult people who invade their little 'clique'." Granted, I haven't been using Linux since before kernel 1.0, like, apparently, everyone else on the list has, but that doesn't mean that I don't have any useful input.>And I think that is exactly what enflamed the whole situation. > >Now that is of course my description of what happened, but I guess I'm not >objective as I have been jumping on you as all these other "evangelists" >on this list. In fact, I really think they are out to get you. Run, >Forest, Run ! > >Kind regards, >-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- >[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 06:12 -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote: >> It's a well known "fact" amongst the general public that the Linux >> "evangelists" are a rude flaming bunch. There are hundreds of news >> articles stating such. An THIS is what the public in general bases >> their attitudes with regards to the community as a whole on. > >You have to keep in mind that support from lists like this one are >voluntary in nature. So, it only seems decent to try to get the >etiquette of the list, and (although it does not apply here) research a >problem before posting questions to the list. >Etiquette? What etiquette? The FIRST comment out of anyone's "mouth" was "piss off". Where's the etequitte in that?>IMHO calling Linux community members a "rude flaming bunch" is highly >inappropriate. The community built a free operating system, and provides >free support. If people need hand holding or extensive support they can >get a support contract from a prominent North-American Linux vendor, or >one of the other venues that provides Linux support. >Well then prove me wrong? Because that's all I've gotten at every turn was nothing but flames. I tried to be helpful and offer something to the community that I, obviously mistakenly, though muight be useful and got a hearty "f*ck you" for my efforts. Where's the "community spirit" in that?>-- Daniel > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On 8/4/06, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> wrote: >> He didn't ask for a link. He asked who I was and why should he care. > >No he didn't, he said: > >"and who are you ? >and what / where is your firewall doc ?" > >and this was after you said: > >"Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is there?" > >First angry words were yours. Please development some people skills, >or at least reflect before posting. Actually don't bother, this is >really entertaining and has made my Friday. >Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?" and THAT is when I responded the way I did.>Cian > > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >CentOS mailing list >> >CentOS at centos.org >> >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >>> Well, with an attitude like that, I can say that I don't think your >>> absence on the list will be missed. That's a mighty big chip on your >>> shoulder. It must be heavy. >>> >>> *shrug* >>> >>> >> >> And YOU wouldn't have a big chip on your shoulder if you OFFERED something >you worked for many months on up to people and got flamed for your troubles? >> > > >Nobody flamed you. Someone who was likely quite busy asked in a curt >way who you were why your message was relevant. The flaming didn't >begin until you started behaving like a scorned girlfriend over it. Get >over it already. You're simply digging yourself in deeper. Just stop it. > >sheeesh.... >If he was so fricken busy why did he even bother to reply? I will tell you why. He was having a bad day and decided that he needed to vent on someone. The problem is he picked someone that will stick up for themselves.> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On 8/4/06, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> wrote: >> >On 8/4/06, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> wrote: >> >> He didn't ask for a link. He asked who I was and why should he care. >> > >> >No he didn't, he said: >> > >> >"and who are you ? >> >and what / where is your firewall doc ?" >> > >> >and this was after you said: >> > >> >"Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is there?" >> > >> >First angry words were yours. Please development some people skills, >> >or at least reflect before posting. Actually don't bother, this is >> >really entertaining and has made my Friday. >> > >> >> Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?" and >THAT is when I responded the way I did. >> > >Really, could you show where this was? Because looking at the archives >(http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-August/067802.html) and >through my mail >what I see is: > >1. your original post >2. request for more informationThis is EXACTLY where he says, "Who are you and why should we care. Those were his exact words." What he SHOULD have said was, "Who are you and what document." *IF* he felt the need to reply at all.>3. your response of "Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is >there?" >4. request for you to post your doc to the wiki >5. you say you had it on forums but stopped monitoring because >(shock!) people upset you. >6. a further request to put it on the wiki >7. Karnabir saying: > and who are you ? > and what / where is your firewall doc ? >8. you start whining > >Cian >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> > >uklinux.net - >The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user. > >On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: > >>> Frank Tanner III wrote: >>> >>>> There goes YOUR attitude again. I *SPECIFICALLY* stated in my initial >>>> e-mail "or those of you that either have an older revision of my >>>> firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new >>>> version available.". >>> >>> if you want your own private mailing list, go start one. bye bye! If you >>> are going to post something here, making it meaningful to people who >>> read the list - is a good thing, and expected from all posters. >>> >> >> It *WAS* meaningful. For the people that it was applicable to. Then >> people decided that because it wasn't applicable to them that they >> should flame me. > >It was not relevant to the majority of the people on this list. I read it >and thought 'huh - weird , has it been misposted ??, have I missed part >of it ??, is it a strange new kind of spam ??, but I didnt find it >important enough to comment. > >It certainly wasnt applicable to me , but more to the point I didnt know >why it had been posted to this list and to what it referred. > >Were the people who it was relevant to then meant to ask you for a fresh >copy to be sent to them ??? > >This really is not the way that opensource documents are usually distributed -So, seeing as how I am not some rich corporation that can afford stupid amounts of bandwidth exactly HOW am I supposed to distribute it any other way? Nobody gave ANY information in this regard until I had been properly flamed first. This is not the first document that I have distributed in this manner. I've distributed a couple on the DNS and BIND list in this manner. I have distributed a couple on the old Red Hat lists in this manner. This is the FIRST time anyone has taken offense at my manner of transport for my document.> >opensource works by peole being able to take what they need, not request a >copy ... > >Or if there was some hidden place that the knowing could download it from >- again - neither the spirit nor method of open source. > >> It's attitudes such as this as to why people say, "You can never get good >support with Open Source software." > >They are more likely to say that if they cant get hold of it in the first >place ... > >> I came onto the list trying to be HJELPFUL, and got burnt to the ground >instead. JUST like in the forums. I guess they'er right. No good deed goes >unpunished. >> >> Now I understand why nobody has offered a document like this to the >> community before. It certainly makes me want to keep all of my future >> documents to myself. They're OBVIOUSLY only a bother to everyone and >> nobody wants them. >> > >You really do seem to have an atiitude problem, and have already taken up >far too much of the bandwidth on this - usually helpful and good mannered >- list.THAT is why I posted to the list. Because I *THOUGHT* that it was usually helpful and good mannered. Apparently there's some secret handshake involved in getting a HELPFUL and GOOD MANNERED response that I am unaware of. Because I got neither until after I'd been flamed.> >You are likely to put peoples backs up by such comments - people dnt know >how great your work is unless they can access it .... > >Why dont you start again - I suggest with something like :- > >' >For those that know about it, I have released a new version of my firewall >document - for those that dont - I have written a document which I would like >to commend to the >open source community as I feel that it is well writen and informative. > >I would like somewhere to host it if anyone has any suggestions, as I cant >provide unlimited bandwidth. > >If anyone would like a copy to check out then please mail me offlist' > >Or some such ... > >There are numerous places where such a document could be hosted with >provided bandwidth , sourceforge and google being two of them , CentOS >also being a possiblity ... > >But having not seen it we dont know if it is relevant or useful .... > >If you wish us to take a look at it then please either email a copy to me >or place it somwehere that it can be accessed. > >Regards > > >Lance Davis >CentOS Project Leader > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >> >> Etiquette? What etiquette? The FIRST comment out of anyone's "mouth" >> was "piss off". Where's the etequitte in that? > >That's really astonishing. I must have missed that mail, though I don't >really filter mails. Who said that and where? >Piss off was in quotes because it was a paraphrase of the way the first response anyone made from the list came across.>> Well then prove me wrong? Because that's all I've gotten at every >> turn was nothing but flames. I tried to be helpful and offer >> something to the community that I, obviously mistakenly, though muight >> be useful and got a hearty "f*ck you" for my efforts. Where's the >> "community spirit" in that? > >Oh right. Nobody offered you to host that document on wiki.centos.org. I >must have dreamt that then.That e-mail came FAR after people had already started flaming me.> >The first offensive mail came from you: > >| On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 15:18 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >| > On 8/3/06, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> >| > wrote: >| >> For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall >| >> document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new >| >> version available. The current version of the document is version >| >> 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas. >| > >| > For those of us who have neither? >| >| Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is there? > >The second mail was an offer to you to host the document on >wiki.centos.org by Jim Perrin. Which you responded to somewhat >strangely. > >The third Mail was Karanbir Singh asking you: > >| and who are you ? >| and what / where is your firewall doc ? > >Which is *short* and maybe misunderstandable, but not offensive at all. >It was a question towards you because that was your first mail on the >list (AFAICS) and noone on this list knew this document. > >Your answer to that was: > >| So far, two of the three replies, yours being one of them, have left me >| with the impression that everyone in the CentOS community is the same as >| the jerks in the forum were. > >So: Second offensive mail also came from you. > >You really *do* seem to have a perception problem. > >Ralph >-- >Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it >possible >Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even >one >Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any >other >Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, >USC > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: > >> >On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Frank Tanner III wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 13:15 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Frank Tanner III wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > It's no wonder that computer novices want nothing to do with Linux. >> >> > >> >> > Maybe Linux wants nothing to do with obnoxious people ? >> >> > >> >> > PS How you communicate influences how you are being perceived, and how >you >> > >> >> > are being perceived incluences how people respond. But if you want to >> >> > believe everybody who uses CentOS dislikes you, go ahead, nobody is >> >> > stopping you. >> >> > >> >> > Unless you want to believe they are. That's fine too. :) >> >> >> >> It's a well known "fact" amongst the general public that the Linux >> >> "evangelists" are a rude flaming bunch. There are hundreds of news >> >> articles stating such. An THIS is what the public in general bases >> >> their attitudes with regards to the community as a whole on. >> >> >> >> I communicated clearly and concisely. I didn't say ONE negative thing >> >> until I got jumped on; or didn't you actually read the thread. >> > >> >I agree your initial mail did not say ONE negative thing. But it was not >> >exactly clear and concise. It failed to reveal any information except >> >that you wrote a firewall document. >> >> Incorrect. It said, "For those of you that have my firewall document." >> So its target audience was very clear and concice. In fact, that was >> the first statement. > >Ok. So because of that line nobody else could ask a question ? Or get >flamed by _you_ otherwise. Why are you being so tense ? Your reaction >caused this whole thread. (Not the initial mail, not Karanbir's answer) >It has nothing to do with nobody else asking a question. It has to do with the WAY it was asked and WHAT was asked. His question came across like, "You and your document don't f*cking matter because we have no idea who you are. You're not welcome here." Right or wrong, that's the way he came across. In fact, more than one person came across that way.> >> >What's more you send it to a list where the majority did not know you, nor > >> >your document. That's ok though, nobody is blaming you for that either. IF > >> >you think that was a worthwhile thing to do, that's your choice. >> > >> >But as soon as people ask you what the document is abouwhich is the >> >logical next step if you send a mail to a list that is uninformed), or >> >a location where you could put it, you started flaming people as if they >> >wanted to correct you. As if you had to defend yourself. >> >> No. They DIDN'T ask me what my document was about. That asked me who >> I was and why they should care. There is a HUGE difference. They >> treated me like I didn't have the RIGHT to speak on the list. > >That was one person, apparently you have succeeded to annoy many more >people (including me). I was not involved in that. > >What's more, you seem to blame the whole community for what this one >person has done to you ! How awfull ! I guess they should make it up to >you now, right ? >No. I blame the people specifically. And since the vast majority of the people that have responded, both here and in the threads, respinded with overt hostitility, it sets the tone for the way the community appears. Right or wrong. That's what it does. If you walked into a crowd of strangers and several of them reacted to you with overt hostility, you'd think, "Jeeze. What a bunch of d*cks."> >> I know you by reputation. You are a fantastic package maintainer. How >> would YOU ahve felt when you first started maintaining packages for the >> various Linux flavors if every time you tried to introduce what you'd >> been doing you got flamed down? Because that's EXACTLY what has >> happened to me. You'd have said, "Piss on it. These guys are nothing >> but jerks that don't seem to be interested in what I say or what I have >> to offer. They just want the opportunity to insult people who invade >> their little 'clique'." > >Karanbir is respected for his work in the CentOS community even more than >I am. He's part of the CentOS team and similar to me, he has a huge >repository of add-on packages. > >Nobody is a jerk. Nobody has flamed you. Nobody insulted you. And even if >they did, there's no reason to insult back or cry fault or exagerate about >things. >I haven't exaggerated about a thing. I stated the way the community made me feel when I offered something up. Nothing more, nothing less. I was left with the perception that everyone was a bunch of rude jerks. Right or wrong, that's the perception that came across.> >> Granted, I haven't been using Linux since before kernel 1.0, like, >> apparently, everyone else on the list has, but that doesn't mean that I >> don't have any useful input. > >You're making things up. Nobody is proclaiming that let alone that >_everyone_ is proclaiming it. Remember that the people that answered your >mail are just a tiny fraction of the complete mailinglist users. Even if >one is flaming you, why should you care ? Give an intelligent answer back, >or spare your breath. > >Afaics you have been the aggressor and you've been insulting since (ven >in the replies to me). There's no point in insulting people unless you >want to be flamed in return. > >But as I said before, you do not have to believe me. You don't have to be >subscribed. The moment you stop answering people in this thread, people >will leave this thread as well. > >Now, let's try to respond to people in this thread without insulting >anyone or bringing this issue up again. Maybe post an index of the topics >from your document. Or convert it to HTML so people can offer feedback or >criticism. Try to divert the subject to something useful. > > >Kind regards, >-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- >[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: > >> Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?" >> and THAT is when I responded the way I did. > >And was that the best way to respond ? > >You could have said who you were, and why your firewall document is >important to the community. Or simply ignored him. >Maybe I did overreact. And the onus is on me for that. However, he shouldn't have fricken posted if he didn't care. I apologize to the group, as a whole for the overreaction. However, I won't respond for "sticking up for myself" when I was flamed. The forums for CentOS set the tone for WHY I overreacted. Right or wrong, the vocal "minotiry" of any group sets the "public face" of that group. You can have 500 people, but if the 10 "loudest" people in the group act in a certain manner then the group as a whole gets the reputation of being that way.>Kind regards, >-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- >[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >> THAT is why I posted to the list. Because I *THOUGHT* that it was >> usually helpful and good mannered. Apparently there's some secret >> handshake involved in getting a HELPFUL and GOOD MANNERED response >> that I am unaware of. Because I got neither until after I'd been >> flamed. > >Stop telling lies. The *second* answer to your mail was an offer to host >it on wiki.centos.org. The *first* answer to your mail wasn't a flame. >Believe as you will. The FIRST reply to my first e-mail to the list was NOT a location to post my document.>You might like to prove otherwise. > >Ralph >-- >Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it >possible >Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even >one >Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any >other >Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, >USC > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:51:37AM -0400, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >> So, seeing as how I am not some rich corporation that can afford stupid >> amounts of bandwidth exactly HOW am I supposed to distribute it any other >> way? Nobody gave ANY information in this regard until I had been properly >> flamed first. > >That's because it's widely known and easily available. No one knew you >needed help with this until you mentioned it. At that point, all sorts of >suggestions for help came up, but you've so far chose to ignore then. >It ISN'T widely known. I've been one of the "lurkers" on this list, and until about a month ago visited the site regularly. Never ocne did I know that there was a wiki that I could have used to post the document to. In fact, I didn't know until someone was kind enough to point it out off-list, I might add.>> This is the FIRST time anyone has taken offense at my manner of transport >> for my document. > >Your earlier message contradicts this. Remember, *we can check*! > >In *this* thread, people weren't offended by your method of transport -- >just perplexed. > >> >You really do seem to have an atiitude problem, and have already taken up >> >far too much of the bandwidth on this - usually helpful and good mannered >> >- list. >> THAT is why I posted to the list. Because I *THOUGHT* that it was usually >> helpful and good mannered. Apparently there's some secret handshake >> involved in getting a HELPFUL and GOOD MANNERED response that I am unaware >> of. Because I got neither until after I'd been flamed. > >Well, you should maybe step back and consider what the unique factor is in >this case. >Well, considering that this isn't the first time that I have distributed documents in this manner. The only unique factor is my audience.> >-- >Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> >Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >> No. I blame the people specifically. And since the vast majority of >> the people that have responded, both here and in the threads, >> respinded with overt hostitility, it sets the tone for the way the >> community appears. Right or wrong. That's what it does. If you >> walked into a crowd of strangers and several of them reacted to you >> with overt hostility, you'd think, "Jeeze. What a bunch of d*cks." > >So you walk into a crowd of strangers, start shouting abuse at them and >wonder why people react the way they do? >I "shouted abuse" AFTER I felt that I was being abused.>Furffu. > >Ralph >-- >Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it >possible >Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even >one >Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any >other >Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, >USC > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:17:23AM -0400, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >> Maybe I did overreact. And the onus is on me for that. However, he >> shouldn't have fricken posted if he didn't care. I apologize to the group, > >I can't speak for Stephen, but I assume he "fricken" posted because he was >interested and wanted to know more. So he asked for more info. And woah did >he not get what he asked for. >The first person that replied to my e-mail is the person that set the tone for my exchanges. Right or wrong there it is there.> >-- >Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> >Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:22:48AM -0400, pctech at mybellybutton.com wrote: >> >That's because it's widely known and easily available. No one knew you >> >needed help with this until you mentioned it. At that point, all sorts of >> >suggestions for help came up, but you've so far chose to ignore then. >> It ISN'T widely known. I've been one of the "lurkers" on this list, and >> until about a month ago visited the site regularly. Never ocne did I know >> that there was a wiki that I could have used to post the document to. In >> fact, I didn't know until someone was kind enough to point it out >> off-list, I might add. > >It is *widely* know that there are many, many places on the internet where >you can publish helpful information for free. Even if you didn't know about >CentOS-specific resources, you had but to ask. >And all someone had to do was POLITELY say, "Hey. We have this resource available." ONE person did that, and they did it off-list before the "flaming" started. Once the "flaming" started it was a lost cause.> >-- >Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> >Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Frank, The glory of Google's gmail has allowed me to view this entire thread in it's entirety as well as in thread order. The first post was your announcement The first reply (second post) was from Stephen John Smoogen, who asked: "For those of us who have neither?" The second reply (third post) was from Jim Perrin, who stated: "Would you consider posting it to the wiki to share with all?" Then, your reply to Stephen (fourth post): "Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is there?" The your reply to Jim (fifth post): "I actually had a thread I started in the forums about it, however, I stopped monitoring the thread due to people accused me of being an e-mail address harvester." And, the root of all evil, Karanbir's reply (sixth post): "and who are you ? and what / where is your firewall doc ? - KB" And, we can conclude that you read Stephen's and Jim's posts before replying to Karanbir because you reference them in your reply to him (seventh post): "So far, two of the three replies, yours being one of them, have left me with the impression that everyone in the CentOS community is the same as the jerks in the forum were. I try to do something to contribute to the community and I just get nothing but negativism." So, chronology and thread index favors the fact that you were the one who replied inappropriately and began the flame war. Ian
>Frank, > >The glory of Google's gmail has allowed me to view this entire thread in it's >entirety as well as in thread order. > >The first post was your announcement >The first reply (second post) was from Stephen John Smoogen, who asked: > >"For those of us who have neither?"Yeah. Because this statement doesn't give the tone of overt hostility at all.....*eyeroll*> >The second reply (third post) was from Jim Perrin, who stated: > >"Would you consider posting it to the wiki to share with all?" > >Then, your reply to Stephen (fourth post): > >"Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is there?" > >The your reply to Jim (fifth post): > >"I actually had a thread I started in the forums about it, however, I >stopped monitoring the thread due to people accused me of being an >e-mail address harvester." > >And, the root of all evil, Karanbir's reply (sixth post): > >"and who are you ? >and what / where is your firewall doc ? > >- KB" > >And, we can conclude that you read Stephen's and Jim's posts before replying >to >Karanbir because you reference them in your reply to him (seventh post): > >"So far, two of the three replies, yours being one of them, have left me >with the impression that everyone in the CentOS community is the same as >the jerks in the forum were. I try to do something to contribute to the >community and I just get nothing but negativism." > >So, chronology and thread index favors the fact that you were the one who >replied inappropriately and began the flame war. > >Ian >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>"For those of us who have neither?" > > Yeah. Because this statement doesn't give the tone of overt hostility at all.....*eyeroll*I see no hostility in someone asking a question that directly acknowledges what your original post stated: "For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available." He plainly asks what if we don't have the older version or are not keeping track of it, but are otherwise interested? I think you are reading in to it too much. Someone not privy to your original thread announcing the document shows interest, and you basically retort it's none of his business (and less politely I might add). Now who's the elitist? Ian
>>>"For those of us who have neither?" >> >> Yeah. Because this statement doesn't give the tone of overt hostility at >all.....*eyeroll* > >I see no hostility in someone asking a question that directly acknowledges >what your original post stated: > >"For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, >or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available." > >He plainly asks what if we don't have the older version or are not keeping >track >of it, but are otherwise interested? I think you are reading in to it too >much. >Someone not privy to your original thread announcing the document shows >interest, >and you basically retort it's none of his business (and less politely I might >add). > >Now who's the elitist? >Well, that's not the way it came across.>Ian >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> Well, that's not the way it came across.And now you see how one misinterpretation fuels the fires of a flamewar. Hence, my advice - do not let your preconceived notions of how a community's minority might react color your participation in said community. Obviously you want to participate and obviously you have somethign to share. That is the crux of Open Source. The "elitist" attitude is not as widely pervasive as people like to think, it's just the press and others grasp onto the minority of outspoken member of the community and nobody writes about the droves of people who are genuinely helpful. Plop your docs onto the CentOS wiki - and be prepared - you might get some criticism since it will be out in public. But, you also might receive some praise. And don't further fuel the negative press of our elitist community by being elitist yourself ;) Someone just stumbling on this list for the first time probably just got a huge bad first impression of you. Now's a good time to correct that impression. Ian
>> Well, that's not the way it came across. > >And now you see how one misinterpretation fuels the fires of a flamewar. >Hence, my advice - do not let your preconceived notions of how a >community's minority might react color your participation in said >community. Obviously you want to participate and obviously you have >somethign to share. That is the crux of Open Source. The "elitist" attitude >is not as widely pervasive as people like to think, it's just the >press and others grasp onto the minority of outspoken member of the >community and nobody writes about the droves of people who are >genuinely helpful. > >Plop your docs onto the CentOS wiki - and be prepared - you might get some >criticism since it will be out in public. But, you also might receive some >praise.Constructive criticism of the document I don't mind. That's how I improve it. Alot of the changes of the document came through constructive criticism and/or feedback. Such as the "headless operation" portion of it. In fact, the document recently went throguh a significant re-write due to my own criticism of the document when I built the firewall I will be deploying this weekend. I found that the anti-virus solution broke something I was trying to accomplish, so I removed it until I can find a better solution. I also added an additional "helpful script". Just a bunch of things.>And don't further fuel the negative press of our elitist community >by being elitist yourself ;) Someone just stumbling on this list for the >first time probably just got a huge bad first impression of you. Now's a >good time to correct that impression. > >Ian >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>> Well, that's not the way it came across. > >To you perhaps. They have medications to help with this. >If you think that one or two people are being hostile, then maybe they >are. When you're operating under the impression that EVERYONE is being >hostile to you... you have to at least consider the possibility that >it's NOT THEM with the issues. > >Grow the thickness of skin required to survive on mailing lists and >irc. Don't respond to hostile posts with hostility, you'll only draw >fire. EIther contribute, or quit whining about how you're being >persecuted. You've been offered at least 3 different hosting areas >during this trainwreck of a thread. >Actually, I've been chatting online for about 20 years now. First on BBSes and then in IRC. Again, the CentOS forums and the people on this mailing list that I had problems with are the only ones that I have encountered this issue with. Those offers came AFTER the flame-fest began, not before.>To everyone else: > >LET THIS THREAD DIE THE DEATH IT DESERVES. > > > >-- >During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary >act. >George Orwell >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>> Actually, I've been chatting online for about 20 years now. First on BBSes >and then in IRC. Again, the CentOS forums and the people on this mailing list >that I had problems with are the only ones that I have encountered this issue >with. >> >> Those offers came AFTER the flame-fest began, not before. > >No. As was already pointed out, mine was the second reply inviting you >to post it to the wiki. Revisionist history doesn't work when there's >an unbiased mailing list archive. >Well, according to the order in which I received the e-mails, the initial erply was NOT from you, so guess again.>-- >During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary >act. >George Orwell >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos