Seriously. Stop it. Carry on your personal vendettas with Stan and others in private, please.
- bdh On Mar 17, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote: > On 2013-03-17 10:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote: >> On 3/17/2013 5:25 AM, Professa Dementia wrote: >> >>> We are very sorry you are not satisfied with the software. Please feel >>> free to return the software for a full refund of all the money you paid. >> You do not speak on behalf of Dovecot, Timo, this list, and certainly >> not for me. Do not use "we" in this manner. And there's no reason to >> be a smart ass. > > I'd call it more 'tongue-in-cheek'... > > But the fact is, while not perfect, Dovecot is pretty well documented, and > Timo is very good about fixing it when errors are pointed out. > > Also, the documentation link is very prominent on dovecots home page, so the > complaint about the 'virtual lack of documentation' is flat out wrong and > deserves to be called out. > > Also, since it (the docs) is a wiki, and since this is 'free software', there > is nothing wrong with some level of expectation that others help out if/when > they encounter anything that lacks. > >> The OP is fully familiar with the open source model. > > So you know him personally? If you don't, then how can you be so sure? I > suggest that his false claim of the 'virtual lack of documentation' suggests > otherwise. People familiar with the open source model are also familiar with > how to look for documentation for open source software. > >> Being open source and developed by volunteer effort is NEVER an excuse for >> crappy software or documentation. > > So now *you* falsely claim that dovecot is 'crappy software with crappy > documentation? > > The nice thing about open source software is you are free to use it, make it > better (either through code contributions, documentation efforts, providing > support on mail lists, etc), or, don't use it at all. > > I suggest that your time would be better spent doing one of the above, rather > than just spewing false claims. > >> The OP has every right, and *duty* to voice his opinion, whether it be >> praise or critique. Without critique software doesn't get improved. > > Does he have every right to *lie* about it? Opinions vary, but facts are > facts, and the fact is, the claim that dovecot has a 'virtual lack of > documentation' is an outright lie. > > It may not be as good as you or others might like, and there may be certain > places where it is a bit lacking, but rather than spewing false claims, maybe > your time would be better spent improving it? > >> I absolutely agree with him. > > Then you are free to do one of the above... > >> While the split config setup may makesense to a developer, and it may work >> better with some automated tools, it is counter intuitive for the majority >> of UNIX users. > > There are those who disagree with you. I happen to *not* be one of them, I > was certainly very confused by the split config when I first peeked at it, > but again, as has already been pointed out, you are free to put everything in > your own single config file. In fact, It is very easy to do, and also > (contrary to the false claims presented) well documented: > > http://wiki2.dovecot.org/BasicConfiguration > > In fact, I now really like doing it this way, because I can just add all of > my settings to a file named /etc/dovecot/conf.d/99-mysettings.conf, and know > that they will over-ride any settings in any other files. > > This makes it really easy to manage my settings. > > I do something similar in postfix - I add a new section at the very end of > main.cf: > > *** Bgn My Custom Settings *** > > my settings here > > *** End My Custom Settings > > This makes it very easy (for me) to manage changes and updates. > > Of course, what I like may seem silly or confusing to someone else. > > Isn't freedom cool? :) > >> It should have been made optional, not the default. > > This is a design decision. Timo is the primary dovecot author, so it is his > decision. You are free to disagree with it, but his choice doesn't make > dovecot 'crappy software'. > >> Doing this was pretty stupid and will confuse, possibly infuriate, new >> users, as in this case, and likely some of those upgrading as well. > > As long as they rtfm - and again, it *is* fairly well documented, although > personally I personally think it could be made more prominent. And again - > you are free to improve the documentation. > > Regardless, it certainly isn't 'stupid', and is only likely to confuse and/or > infuriate new users who refuse to rtfm. > >> Things like this, as well as lackluster documentation, tend to retard >> adoption, or worse, drive current users to competing solutions. > > I would agree in general, but not with respect to dovecot in particular, > because I don't see dovecot as having 'lackluster' documentation. > >>> And just a friendly word of advice: change your attitude or you will >>> find your cries fall on deaf ears. > > Back at ya Stan. Normally you are pretty level-headed, and some of your posts > regarding details of enterprise hardware are extremely informative, > personally I think this post is way beneath you. > >> The OP's attitude is fine. It is yours that is the problem. Dissent >> and critique should be cherished, not attacked. We're not a bunch of >> little Fascists walking in lock step under de Fuhrer Timo, so stop >> acting like one. > > Dissent is ok to a point, as long as it is done politely and without > unnecessary flaming, and includes some minimal amount of reasonable argument. > > Flame-baiting (ie making false claims that dovecot is 'crappy software with > lackluster or ), on the other hand, is absolutely *not* ok, and imnsho, this > is all the OP - and you - were engaging in. > > When it boils down to a simple question of personal preference (ie the 'split > config' issue), by all means, provide *constructive* criticism (ie, make your > argument against making the split config the default) - but just name-calling > and outright false-isms is *not* OK, and I for one would appreciate it if > you'd re-think your comments. > > Personally, I think both of you owe Timo an apology. > > -- > > Best regards, > > Charles > >
