Hello, I think shorewall-newbies is useless. The reason for a mailing list is that one may follow/use it at their discretion. Some benefits of a core list include: It is usually archived and searchable. It demonstrates trends in behavior that are usefull. It provides direction for development and documentation. One may follow a list for a number of reasons: You are moderating. You are learning. You are staying fresh. You are developing. You are seeking solutions or help. By splitting list traffic into multiple lists, most of the above benefits are rendered less powerful, and unless necessary, provides additional confusion. Of course one can follow many lists, but again most benefits are reduced. Unless the traffic of a core list is immense, there is no reason for fragmentation. The amount of traffic on this list fluctuates, but I think it has never become unmanageable. So, as long as the shorewall support team adds their two bits, I see shorewall-newbies as a complication. Go shorewall support team..!.. (just my two bits) Alex Martin http://www.rettc.com
I have to agree with Alex, fragmenting the mailing list is not going to make people RTFM! I also do not think that putting the FAQ on a Wiki site is going to be of any benefit. As I understand it, the "original" problem is that Tom needs help fielding newbie questions that are already answered somewhere in the documentation. As we have seen, there is are a number of people willing to assist with Shorewall support. These volunteers should attempt to answer the newbie questions and only request Tom''s assistance when they are stumped. I think that will solve most of Tom''s frustration. Graeme> -----Original Message----- > From: > shorewall-users-bounces+g.boyle3=verizon.net@lists.shorewall.n > et > [mailto:shorewall-users-bounces+g.boyle3=verizon.net@lists.sho > rewall.net] On Behalf Of Alex Martin > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:07 AM > To: Shorewall Users Mailing List > Subject: [Shorewall-users] shorewall-newbies > > Hello, > > I think shorewall-newbies is useless. > > The reason for a mailing list is that one may follow/use it > at their discretion. > Some benefits of a core list include: > It is usually archived and searchable. > It demonstrates trends in behavior that are usefull. > It provides direction for development and documentation. > > One may follow a list for a number of reasons: > You are moderating. > You are learning. > You are staying fresh. > You are developing. > You are seeking solutions or help. > > By splitting list traffic into multiple lists, most of the > above benefits are > rendered less powerful, and unless necessary, provides > additional confusion. > > Of course one can follow many lists, but again most benefits > are reduced. > > Unless the traffic of a core list is immense, there is no reason for > fragmentation. > > The amount of traffic on this list fluctuates, but I think it > has never become > unmanageable. > > So, as long as the shorewall support team adds their two bits, I see > shorewall-newbies as a complication. > > Go shorewall support team..!.. > > (just my two bits) > > Alex Martin > http://www.rettc.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users > Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm > FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm >_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 03:07, Alex Martin wrote:> Hello, > > I think shorewall-newbies is useless. > > The reason for a mailing list is that one may follow/use it at their discretion. > Some benefits of a core list include: > It is usually archived and searchable.The newbies list will be both (although archive search at shorewall.net searches all mailing list archives).> It demonstrates trends in behavior that are usefull. > It provides direction for development and documentation. > > One may follow a list for a number of reasons: > You are moderating. > You are learning. > You are staying fresh. > You are developing. > You are seeking solutions or help.You are a masochist.> > By splitting list traffic into multiple lists, most of the above benefits are > rendered less powerful, and unless necessary, provides additional confusion. > > Of course one can follow many lists, but again most benefits are reduced. > > Unless the traffic of a core list is immense, there is no reason for > fragmentation. > > The amount of traffic on this list fluctuates, but I think it has never become > unmanageable. > > So, as long as the shorewall support team adds their two bits, I see > shorewall-newbies as a complication. > > Go shorewall support team..!.. > > (just my two bits) >We''ll see how it goes -- we can always collapse back to one list. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 06:23, Graeme Boyle wrote:> I have to agree with Alex, fragmenting the mailing list is not going to make > people RTFM! I also do not think that putting the FAQ on a Wiki site is > going to be of any benefit.I''m convinced that absolutely nothing is going to make some people RTFM. I''m also convinced that the safest place to store state secrets is to publish them on a technical web site under the title "Before you ask for help on the support mailing list..." and simply place an email link to the mailing list below the secret text. No one will ever read the material above that link. As far as the Wiki thing goes, the opinion has been expressed that one reason that people don''t contribute to the Shorewall documentation is that it is stored in CVS and that CVS is so intimidating that only brain surgeons and one woman from Baltimore are willing to try to cope with it. Converting the FAQ to wiki format is supposed to make it easier for those who are CVS squeamish to contribute. We''ll see...> > > As I understand it, the "original" problem is that Tom needs help fielding > newbie questions that are already answered somewhere in the documentation. > As we have seen, there is are a number of people willing to assist with > Shorewall support. These volunteers should attempt to answer the newbie > questions and only request Tom''s assistance when they are stumped. I think > that will solve most of Tom''s frustration. >By having a separate list (which I won''t subscribe to) for newbie questions, I don''t have to read them and feel like I should respond. And my blood pressure will be lower... -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 08:06, Tom Eastep wrote:> As far as the Wiki thing goes, the opinion has been expressed that one > reason that people don''t contribute to the Shorewall documentation is > that it is stored in CVS and that CVS is so intimidating that only brain > surgeons and one woman from Baltimore are willing to try to cope with > it. Converting the FAQ to wiki format is supposed to make it easier for > those who are CVS squeamish to contribute. We''ll see...Tom, That assertion came from me alone, and is a direct result of my expedience with LEAF. I have found that cvs is used, if the documentation is in a format that can be manipulated easier than html (e.g. DocBook XML). We finally found a tool (xxe) that allows pseudo WYSIWYG editing of DocBook XML. This greatly helped our guide creation, but it hasn''t helped our FAQs. A Wiki is our next step, in an effort to keep them current. Note: I also created an auto-build process for all documents in the leaf repository. We are still working on converting all of the old content. http://leaf-project.org/doc/guide/ (conversion almost done) http://leaf-project.org/doc/man/ (conversion complete) http://leaf-project.org/doc/howto/ (three docs converted) daily.sh (auto-build script) http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/leaf/devel/mhnoyes/sf-admin/ BTW, I completed the initial conversion of the Shorewall FAQ.htm to Simplified DocBook XML. Let me know if you want it. The only thing that didn''t convert well was your WARNING admonition. I would have to use DocBook XML 4.x for that, as it''s not part of Simplified. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 08:43, Mike Noyes wrote:> > I have found that cvs is used, if the documentation is in a format that > can be manipulated easier than html (e.g. DocBook XML). We finally found > a tool (xxe) that allows pseudo WYSIWYG editing of DocBook XML. This > greatly helped our guide creation, but it hasn''t helped our FAQs. A Wiki > is our next step, in an effort to keep them current.I must be missing something here -- I do WYSIWYG HTML editing using Mozilla Composer; that''s the way that all of my documentation was created. Are you saying that the "pseudo WYSIWYG" editing in xxe is preferable? -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 08:54, Tom Eastep wrote:> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 08:43, Mike Noyes wrote: > > I have found that cvs is used, if the documentation is in a format that > > can be manipulated easier than html (e.g. DocBook XML). We finally found > > a tool (xxe) that allows pseudo WYSIWYG editing of DocBook XML. This > > greatly helped our guide creation, but it hasn''t helped our FAQs. A Wiki > > is our next step, in an effort to keep them current. > > I must be missing something here -- I do WYSIWYG HTML editing using > Mozilla Composer; that''s the way that all of my documentation was > created. Are you saying that the "pseudo WYSIWYG" editing in xxe is > preferable?Tom, Yes. Reasons: * DocBook XML can be transformed into multiple target formats (e.g. plain text, html, pdf, man pages, etc.) * Content is separated from presentation. * Automatic index, xref, contents, etc. generation. * Output customizable with DocBook XSL Stylesheets http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/ There are probably more benefits I forgot. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:23, Mike Noyes wrote:> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 08:54, Tom Eastep wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 08:43, Mike Noyes wrote: > > > I have found that cvs is used, if the documentation is in a format that > > > can be manipulated easier than html (e.g. DocBook XML). We finally found > > > a tool (xxe) that allows pseudo WYSIWYG editing of DocBook XML. This > > > greatly helped our guide creation, but it hasn''t helped our FAQs. A Wiki > > > is our next step, in an effort to keep them current. > > > > I must be missing something here -- I do WYSIWYG HTML editing using > > Mozilla Composer; that''s the way that all of my documentation was > > created. Are you saying that the "pseudo WYSIWYG" editing in xxe is > > preferable? > > Tom, > Yes. > > Reasons: > * DocBook XML can be transformed into multiple target formats > (e.g. plain text, html, pdf, man pages, etc.) > * Content is separated from presentation. > * Automatic index, xref, contents, etc. generation. > * Output customizable with DocBook XSL Stylesheets > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/ > > There are probably more benefits I forgot.Ok -- So in your experience, people are willing to contribute to printed documentation but not on-line? -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:31, Tom Eastep wrote:> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:23, Mike Noyes wrote: > > Reasons: > > * DocBook XML can be transformed into multiple target formats > > (e.g. plain text, html, pdf, man pages, etc.) > > * Content is separated from presentation. > > * Automatic index, xref, contents, etc. generation. > > * Output customizable with DocBook XSL Stylesheets > > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/ > > > > There are probably more benefits I forgot. > > Ok -- So in your experience, people are willing to contribute to printed > documentation but not on-line?Tom, No. What I''m trying to say is many authors don''t want to deal with presentation details. They just want to write. DocBook XML and to a lesser extent Wikis allow this. The advantage with a Wiki is you don''t have the CVS learning curve as an additional barrier to contributions. I''m probably doing a poor job of advocating my beliefs. :-( -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:57, Mike Noyes wrote:> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:31, Tom Eastep wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:23, Mike Noyes wrote: > > > Reasons: > > > * DocBook XML can be transformed into multiple target formats > > > (e.g. plain text, html, pdf, man pages, etc.) > > > * Content is separated from presentation. > > > * Automatic index, xref, contents, etc. generation. > > > * Output customizable with DocBook XSL Stylesheets > > > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/ > > > > > > There are probably more benefits I forgot. > > > > Ok -- So in your experience, people are willing to contribute to printed > > documentation but not on-line? > > Tom, > No. What I''m trying to say is many authors don''t want to deal with > presentation details. They just want to write. DocBook XML and to a > lesser extent Wikis allow this. The advantage with a Wiki is you don''t > have the CVS learning curve as an additional barrier to contributions. > > I''m probably doing a poor job of advocating my beliefs. :-(I''m just trying to understand what benefit there would be, if any, for converting the entire Shorewall document base to DocBook XML and going through a much steeper learning curve *myself* in order to be able to do what I''ve been doing all along. I guess that I would like to see a show of hands of people who would be willing to contribute to the documentation if it were in DocBook XML format but who decline to help maintain the current HTML documentation... -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:09, Alex Martin wrote:> Hello, > > I am sorry to say that I am learning to use cvs at this exact moment. Learning > this has been on my list for a while, someone pointed me to the shorewall-docs > repository. > > I would be willing to go the docbook way, and I have played with it a bit, but > again, that is because I have time and motivation to learn it. > > Some say "don''t fix what ain''t broke"... > > I have a habit of breaking fixed things though.The trade off here is that I can either spend my time enhancing Shorewall or I can spend it reformatting the documentation and learning a new documentation editor. I would much rather spend my time on the former unless there is a clear benefit to the latter. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
Hello, I am sorry to say that I am learning to use cvs at this exact moment. Learning this has been on my list for a while, someone pointed me to the shorewall-docs repository. I would be willing to go the docbook way, and I have played with it a bit, but again, that is because I have time and motivation to learn it. Some say "don''t fix what ain''t broke"... I have a habit of breaking fixed things though. Alex Martin http://www.rettc.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Eastep" <teastep@shorewall.net> To: "Mailing List for Experienced Shorewall Users" <shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:54 PM Subject: RE: [Shorewall-users] shorewall-newbies> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:57, Mike Noyes wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:31, Tom Eastep wrote: > > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:23, Mike Noyes wrote: > > > > Reasons: > > > > * DocBook XML can be transformed into multiple target formats > > > > (e.g. plain text, html, pdf, man pages, etc.) > > > > * Content is separated from presentation. > > > > * Automatic index, xref, contents, etc. generation. > > > > * Output customizable with DocBook XSL Stylesheets > > > > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/ > > > > > > > > There are probably more benefits I forgot. > > > > > > Ok -- So in your experience, people are willing to contribute to printed > > > documentation but not on-line? > > > > Tom, > > No. What I''m trying to say is many authors don''t want to deal with > > presentation details. They just want to write. DocBook XML and to a > > lesser extent Wikis allow this. The advantage with a Wiki is you don''t > > have the CVS learning curve as an additional barrier to contributions. > > > > I''m probably doing a poor job of advocating my beliefs. :-( > > I''m just trying to understand what benefit there would be, if any, for > converting the entire Shorewall document base to DocBook XML and going > through a much steeper learning curve *myself* in order to be able to do > what I''ve been doing all along. I guess that I would like to see a show > of hands of people who would be willing to contribute to the > documentation if it were in DocBook XML format but who decline to help > maintain the current HTML documentation... > > -Tom > -- > Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool > Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net > Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users> Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm > FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm >_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 12:54, Tom Eastep wrote:> I''m just trying to understand what benefit there would be, if any, for > converting the entire Shorewall document base to DocBook XML and going > through a much steeper learning curve *myself* in order to be able to do > what I''ve been doing all along.Tom, I thought the Shorewall community was taking over FAQ maintenance. Is this correct? Otherwise I agree the benefits probably don''t outweigh you learning to use DocBook XML or Wiki.> I guess that I would like to see a show > of hands of people who would be willing to contribute to the > documentation if it were in DocBook XML format but who decline to help > maintain the current HTML documentation.../me raises his hand. To back it up see attached tarball containing a complete conversion of FAQs to Simplified DocBook XML. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:09, Alex Martin wrote:> I am sorry to say that I am learning to use cvs at this exact moment. Learning > this has been on my list for a while, someone pointed me to the shorewall-docs > repository. > > I would be willing to go the docbook way, and I have played with it a bit, but > again, that is because I have time and motivation to learn it.Alex, Your statements above are exactly why I''m advocating a Wiki.> Some say "don''t fix what ain''t broke"... > > I have a habit of breaking fixed things though.Me too. :-) However, the current system is slightly broke. see MarkUp Validation Service http://validator.w3.org/ Shorewall FAQs http://shorewall.net/FAQ.htm This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional! http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fshorewall.net%2FFAQ.htm -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:33, Mike Noyes wrote:> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 12:54, Tom Eastep wrote: > > I''m just trying to understand what benefit there would be, if any, for > > converting the entire Shorewall document base to DocBook XML and going > > through a much steeper learning curve *myself* in order to be able to do > > what I''ve been doing all along. > > Tom, > I thought the Shorewall community was taking over FAQ maintenance. Is > this correct? Otherwise I agree the benefits probably don''t outweigh you > learning to use DocBook XML or Wiki. > > > I guess that I would like to see a show > > of hands of people who would be willing to contribute to the > > documentation if it were in DocBook XML format but who decline to help > > maintain the current HTML documentation... > > /me raises his hand. > > To back it up see attached tarball containing a complete conversion of > FAQs to Simplified DocBook XML.Cool -- thanks. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 14:19, Tom Eastep wrote:> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:33, Mike Noyes wrote: > > To back it up see attached tarball containing a complete conversion of > > FAQs to Simplified DocBook XML. > > Cool -- thanks.Tom, You''re most welcome. There are quite a few improvements that can be made to the structure of the document. The Revision History could be moved to an appendix, quoted commands could be changed to emphasis command, add conventions section, etc. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Post: Shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net Subscribe/Unsubscribe: https://lists.shorewall.net/mailman/listinfo/shorewall-users Support: http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm FAQ: http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm