Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34753 discussions

RE: Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>> 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(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by Ian Kaufman 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

> 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

2 1

RE: Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>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(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by Ian Kaufman 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

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

1 0

RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:22:48AM -0400, pctech(a)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(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> >Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:17:23AM -0400, pctech(a)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(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> >Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>pctech(a)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(a)br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it >possible >Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....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(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

RE: Re: RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:51:37AM -0400, pctech(a)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(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> >Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>pctech(a)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(a)br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it >possible >Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....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(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

RE: RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech(a)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(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- >[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss