BLFS Firewalling Text
hr at our-home.net
Wed Jan 9 13:50:28 PST 2002
I wish you a happy new year and success for your exams!
Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Tue, 01, Jan, 2002 at 07:00:30PM +0100, Henning Rohde spoke thus..
> > But [...] you changed a lot, didn't you? E.g., the
> > "Config-options for a firewalling-enabled Kernel", the removal of any
> > "orderedlist" and much more. Why?
> Mainly because when I looked at the book, I decided I'd prefer to keep
> the tags used in the book to a simple list; mainly <sect1-8> <para>
> <screen> <userinput> <blockquote> <emphasis> with the occasional
> <itemizedlist>. It's nothing personal, I was trying to make the book
> more uniform in appearence. Also, I'm not too keen on using tables
> in the book; it just doesn't (IMO) look right.
OK, that's a legitimate wish, but please allow me to use a table for the
As soon as there's any major discussion about howto display that kind of
information I'm easy to switch to any _consensus_.
But until that I'd prefer to keep these information in such a table
because it's IMHO the optimal way to structure the options!
> The orderedlist removal occurred because it isn't possible to do it that
> way with <orderedlist> and <sect3> tags and I needed to get the book
> rendering without the errors we were getting. I discussed it with
> Gerard and even with the fixes he was suggesting, I couldn't get the
> rendering right.
> Finally, the wording changes were to try and standardise the tense and
> direction of the book and in (only) one or two places, clarify what was
> being said. As I say below, if you disagree with any specific changes,
> please let me know.
Sorry, but there were at least 3 cases, where you definitely missed the
Your "improvement" really meant the reverse of what I wanted to express!
E.g. on the beginning of Masquerading Router:
you wrote: [principially] the box [...] should _offer_ no services...,
I wanted to express: it should not _access_ any [untrusted] service!!!
BTW: That's nothing bad, it's good that these cases of unambiguity were
cleared out; I think it's the case that I'm no "native-English"-speaker
why it's been ambiguous.
> > OK, one last word about changing my texts: as long as the book is
> > licensed under the BSD-License, I know, there is no way for me to hinder
> > anyone doing anything with my texts.
> > But, I definitely aprechiated it if those changes were not made
> > directly, keeping me informed or not, but telling me what needs to be
> > changed.
> The thing is, I'm (for my sins) responsible for the overall book. The
> changes I made were with the intention of making the book more uniform.
> I'm sorry I didn't just ask you to do them but I'm currently (as you may
> have seen) trying to beat the book into shape. If there's any changes
> you feel need to be backed out, then I'll be happy to do it. It is
> though sometimes easier for me to change things than to list all the
> changes I feel need made. Hopefully, now that I've altered the layout,
> I shouldn't need to touch the text other than in very minor places such
> as spelling and occasionally phrasing.
NO, you're not responsible for my texts, at least as long as there's my
name below the last line!
Please tell me next time, which words you'd like to have expressed in
another way, we may discuss about it and find a consensus: DO NEVER
AGAIN TOUCH MY TEXTS!
> > Hmm, I think you, being listed in 2.4.17's changelog, are familiar with
> > the structure of "maintainers" of the Linux' kernel, aren't you?
> > -> As long as there is a maintainer, changes/patches to "his" part are
> > filtered/approved by him before they are applied by The Grand Master.
> Actually, my change went straight in because there was no maintainer for
> that section of the kernel :-) But I do understand your point.
> > Could you imaging to setup structure or procedure for the BLFS-Book like
> > this?
> I can but as you probably know, even in the kernel, Linus can override
> what the maintainers put to him. I don't generally want to do that, but
> I felt that as I was reorganising the book (again!), it was more
> important to get the changes out. I can, as I've emphasised, revert
> changes if you feel it is necessary.
Now, have a look, here it is, the great "cleaning up":
Good luck for your exams, once more,
Henning author of the firewalling-related sections of the BLFS-book
PS: Have you talked with Jeff Baumann?
Personally I would feel quite unhappy on removing any ack's!!!
If he agreed on you doing it or if you've done it on his wish, it's ok,
personally I'd prefer to express my respect for his help on writing the
"Workaround/Solution: Disable Active Scripting and never turn it on.
Better, do not use IE in hostile environments such as the internet."
Georgi Guninski about the latest Bug in MS Internet Explorer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 8683 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the blfs-dev