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@mybellybutton.com pctech@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@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 15:18 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8/3/06, pctech@mybellybutton.com pctech@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?
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 8/3/06, pctech@mybellybutton.com pctech@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?
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:06 -0400, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 8/3/06, pctech@mybellybutton.com pctech@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?
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.
Frank Tanner III wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:06 -0400, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 8/3/06, pctech@mybellybutton.com pctech@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?
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.
CentOS Wiki != CentOS Forums, though :)
I can't stand web forums either, but I do like a central place for collecting stuff like that ...
Cheers,
Ralph
pctech@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
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 01:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
pctech@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 ?
I am a CentOS user just like yourself. Nothing more and nothing less. My document was initially created for my own use, but after I got it to a sufficiently "useful" state, I figured that others in the Linux community might like it as well.
You probably haven't heard about it because I didn't "advertise" its availability in the mailing list. I "advertised" it in the forums, until people started accusing me of things that were uncalled for, and untrue.
Since I'd imagine that the people that did request it probably make use of these forums, I figured I would let them know that there was a newer version available, since I have abandoned the thread in the forums.
I mean, hell, if everyone in the list wants to give me the impression that neither myself nor my document is appreciated, that's fine. I will keep it all to myself.
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.
It's no wonder that computer novices want nothing to do with Linux.
- KB
well, I should thank you for the console init howto you submitted a while back which helped me alot. It was very clear and coherent, and helped me in my later scripting/ automation efforts.
there were a few funny replies where someone tried to do a comparative analysis of console servers vs. screen switches -but your response, and Rodrigo Barbosa's, both helped me in a pinch.
As for the stuck-up attitudes you tend to run across, just blow it off.
For every person they discourage, I help three. The one chap just communicates that way. Genotype x43a wouldn't have it any other way.
-karl
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 01:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
pctech@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 ?
I am a CentOS user just like yourself. Nothing more and nothing less. My document was initially created for my own use, but after I got it to a sufficiently "useful" state, I figured that others in the Linux community might like it as well.
You probably haven't heard about it because I didn't "advertise" its availability in the mailing list. I "advertised" it in the forums, until people started accusing me of things that were uncalled for, and untrue.
Since I'd imagine that the people that did request it probably make use of these forums, I figured I would let them know that there was a newer version available, since I have abandoned the thread in the forums.
I mean, hell, if everyone in the list wants to give me the impression that neither myself nor my document is appreciated, that's fine. I will keep it all to myself.
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.
It's no wonder that computer novices want nothing to do with Linux.
- KB
--
Frank Tanner III (pctech@mybellybutton.com)
ICQ: 1730844 AIM: KalokSundancer MSN: pctech@mybellybutton.com YIM: fbtanner
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:16 -0700, Karl R. Balsmeier wrote:
well, I should thank you for the console init howto you submitted a while back which helped me alot. It was very clear and coherent, and helped me in my later scripting/ automation efforts.
there were a few funny replies where someone tried to do a comparative analysis of console servers vs. screen switches -but your response, and Rodrigo Barbosa's, both helped me in a pinch.
As for the stuck-up attitudes you tend to run across, just blow it off.
For every person they discourage, I help three. The one chap just communicates that way. Genotype x43a wouldn't have it any other way.
-karl
That was a direct piece from my firewall document. I don't mind helping people out when I can. What I *DO* mind, which you didn't do, is when people are jerks when you try to help them. Which is why I stopped paying attention to the people in the CentOS forums.
While, yes, I have my own Internet domain, I cannot afford the bandwidth necessary that hosting my document online could incur. A few people on the list couldn't seem to grasp that not everyone creating something for the "community" has deep pockets. As such, I chose to distribute it via e-mail and asked people to request it. Then I was accused of being nothing more than someone trolling for e-mail addresses. When I, understandably, stood up for myself I got accused of following "Microsoft practices". I'm still not sure what that meant.
Several articles have stated that Open Source, and specifically Linux, won't gain acceptance amongst "grand ma and grandpa" desktop users until the Linux community itself gets off of it's "high horse". That they alienate people due to their attitudes. Even having been a computer network engineer for over 20 years and a user of Linux since Red Hat version 5.x, they sure did a good job of alienating me from the forums; and it looks like people are trying to do the same with regards to the mailing list as well.
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 01:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
pctech@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 ?
I am a CentOS user just like yourself. Nothing more and nothing less. My document was initially created for my own use, but after I got it to a sufficiently "useful" state, I figured that others in the Linux community might like it as well.
You probably haven't heard about it because I didn't "advertise" its availability in the mailing list. I "advertised" it in the forums, until people started accusing me of things that were uncalled for, and untrue.
Since I'd imagine that the people that did request it probably make use of these forums, I figured I would let them know that there was a newer version available, since I have abandoned the thread in the forums.
I mean, hell, if everyone in the list wants to give me the impression that neither myself nor my document is appreciated, that's fine. I will keep it all to myself.
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.
It's no wonder that computer novices want nothing to do with Linux.
- KB
--
Frank Tanner III (pctech@mybellybutton.com)
ICQ: 1730844 AIM: KalokSundancer MSN: pctech@mybellybutton.com YIM: fbtanner
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:09:12PM -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote:
While, yes, I have my own Internet domain, I cannot afford the bandwidth necessary that hosting my document online could incur. A few people on
How large is this document? Small enough that you could just post it to this list?
How about making it a sourceforge project?
Or starting a livejournal blog, and posting it there?
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 23:30 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:09:12PM -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote:
While, yes, I have my own Internet domain, I cannot afford the bandwidth necessary that hosting my document online could incur. A few people on
How large is this document? Small enough that you could just post it to this list?
How about making it a sourceforge project?
Or starting a livejournal blog, and posting it there?
Currently it is an 8M PDF. Too big to post to the list, as far as I am concerned. Besides, I don't want to get accused to being a spammer in addition to an e-mail address harvester.
Hi Frank,
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 21:34 -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote:
Currently it is an 8M PDF. Too big to post to the list, as far as I am concerned. Besides, I don't want to get accused to being a spammer in addition to an e-mail address harvester.
Berlios (http://developer.berlios.de) is usually very willing to host documentation-related projects. They give 100MB web space, and things like SVN and CVS repositories.
Take care, Daniel
Frank Tanner III wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 01:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
pctech@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 ?
I am a CentOS user just like yourself. Nothing more and nothing less. My document was initially created for my own use, but after I got it to a sufficiently "useful" state, I figured that others in the Linux community might like it as well.
<-- snip loads of fluff -->
you are still forgetting something... like. maybe a place to get this doc ? if you dont have a place to host it - as Jim and Ralph have already pointed out perhaps we could move it into the centos wiki ( wiki.centos.org ).
as for your attitude, its you who seems to have the problem - dont expect people to just know you off the email address you use or directly be able to make a connection with a doc that is neither available, nor ever been mentioned on this list. Everyone here does not have the time or the latitude to follow each and every msg also posted in the forums. Actually, i might be surprised if more than a handfull of the thousands subscribed here actually watch the forums and the lists.
An email that says "ok, I've updated my doc" means absolutely nothing to anyone, unless it also includes some relevant info, my questions to you were to follow up for such info.
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:06 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Frank Tanner III wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 01:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
pctech@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 ?
I am a CentOS user just like yourself. Nothing more and nothing less. My document was initially created for my own use, but after I got it to a sufficiently "useful" state, I figured that others in the Linux community might like it as well.
<-- snip loads of fluff -->
you are still forgetting something... like. maybe a place to get this doc ? if you dont have a place to host it - as Jim and Ralph have already pointed out perhaps we could move it into the centos wiki ( wiki.centos.org ).
as for your attitude, its you who seems to have the problem - dont expect people to just know you off the email address you use or directly be able to make a connection with a doc that is neither available, nor ever been mentioned on this list. Everyone here does not have the time or the latitude to follow each and every msg also posted in the forums. Actually, i might be surprised if more than a handfull of the thousands subscribed here actually watch the forums and the lists.
An email that says "ok, I've updated my doc" means absolutely nothing to anyone, unless it also includes some relevant info, my questions to you were to follow up for such info.
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.".
How about you climb down off of your high horse and actually READ the e-mail instead of jumping all over me. I realize that a rational conversation is beyond some people's capabilities, as it appears to be beyond yours, but if you don't have anything USEFUL to contribute, why contribute at all?
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.
-K
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
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. :)
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
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.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
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 just read this entire exchange. I think Karanbir's initial response might have seemed a bit curt. Perhaps he was just busy. It didn't seem like anyone went out of their way to annoy you. Your posts, except for the first, have been insulting to others (and intentionally so). Rather than lash out at "the community," a view into the mirror might be more instructive. I've found the community in general and this list in particular to be quite useful over the years. Sure, there is the occasional wanker (some might even think I'm one of them...heh), but I think your characterization of the community and the list is wrong, unfair, and rather mean spirited.
I hope you find a place to host your code and that you have a chance to reflect on your behaviour and see that it was perhaps triggered by a simple misunderstanding rather than malice.
Cheers,
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 09:22 -0400, Chris Mauritz wrote: > 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 just read this entire exchange. I think Karanbir's initial response > might have seemed a bit curt. Perhaps he was just busy. It didn't seem > like anyone went out of their way to annoy you. Your posts, except for > the first, have been insulting to others (and intentionally so). Rather > than lash out at "the community," a view into the mirror might be more > instructive. I've found the community in general and this list in > particular to be quite useful over the years. Sure, there is the > occasional wanker (some might even think I'm one of them...heh), but I > think your characterization of the community and the list is wrong, > unfair, and rather mean spirited. > > I hope you find a place to host your code and that you have a chance to > reflect on your behaviour and see that it was perhaps triggered by a > simple misunderstanding rather than malice. >
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.
> Cheers, > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos --
--------------------------------------------------- Frank Tanner III (pctech@mybellybutton.com)
ICQ: 1730844 AIM: KalokSundancer MSN: pctech@mybellybutton.com YIM: fbtanner
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*
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.
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.
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@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
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.
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.
-- Daniel
Daniel de Kok spake the following on 8/4/2006 6:38 AM:
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.
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.
-- Daniel
I have seen some fair amount of handholding on this list and also the CentOS list. Can we just say that since it is Friday, and everybody has had a tough week, that maybe we could just go on and let it die quietly!
On Thursday 03 August 2006 17:13, pctech@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
pctech@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:
And in your case:
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.
-
Chris Mauritz -
Dag Wieers -
Daniel de Kok -
Frank Tanner III -
Jim Perrin -
Karanbir Singh -
Karanbir Singh -
Karl R. Balsmeier -
Matthew Miller -
pctech＠mybellybutton.com
-
Ralph Angenendt -
Robert Moskowitz -
Scott Silva -
Stephen John Smoogen -
w.arkwolf