discuss: HowToForge
Subject:
Re: [discuss] HowToForge
From:
####@####.####
Date:
31 Jul 2008 04:14:49 +0100
Message-Id: <adaf8c950807302014l1227d0d5ibbef3bb2158d34c8@mail.gmail.com>
Alright, enough. This is ridiculous. You said nothing in the last
two post. Rick, contribute some ideas or just view the post as they
come and perhaps help solve the issue rater than banter others.
-Paul
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Rick Moen ####@####.#### wrote:
> Quoting Karl O. Pinc ####@####.####
>
>> To my mind the LDP distinguishes itself by it's focus
>> as a collection of redistributable documents.
>
> Right. That's where http://www.howtoforge.com/'s structure and
> licensing are relevant. Those are no accident: They're incidental to
> guy's advertising business model. (Again, I have no problem with him
> having such a business model.)
>
>
>> >I'm entirely unclear on why it's incumbent on LDP to differentiate
>> >itself from anyone or anything.
>>
>> Because if it does not it will be lost in the noise
>> of the Internet?
>
> We're _all_ lost in the noise of the Internet. ;->
>
> Personally, Sean's question struck me as yet another "LDP needs to
> justify its existence to me for no better reason than my publicly asking
> that it do so" post -- which gets kinda old after a while, but you'll
> notice that I _did_ answer it anyway.
>
> (I was also a little disappointed to note that the HOWTO about patching
> BIND for the July 8 security fixes failed to mention making sure that no
> query-source directive in named.conf* locks recursive-resolver packets
> to port 53. If the document had been open source, I would have pitched
> in and made that edit.)
>
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>
--
----
Paul Hendricksen
United States Army
SGT, Infantry
