> Misinformation by another user, which I was corrected on.
It's one's job to fight through misinformation. If we didn't hold
people accountable, then anyone can argue that they heard the
information from somewhere else. If I tell you 2 + 2 is 12 or worse
spread that nonsense to small children, it is not OK for me to excuse
that under the notion that "someone told me that though". It's my
responsibility to scrutinize such information; and if not, don't speak
as an authority on the matter and keep my mouth closed.
> You nitpick everything I say, like the grammar police, maybe you need to
> realise some people are not as good as others at communication, and they
> don't need you standing there dragging them through the dirt when they
> slip up and make mistakes.
The only thing I said that can be construed as "policing your grammar"
was my use of "[sic]" in your quote which in hindsight I regret. I am a
"reformed grammar Nazi" after learning a lot more about linguistics,
but I prefer using "[sic]" when quoting as I don't want the "mistake"
to be attributed to me.
> However, not having a global address on a device/container/vm does make
> it harder for inbound connections to reach the device. For servers, this
> is bad, you want to be reachable in the shortest path possible, for
> clients, you don't want to be reachable at all.
.
.
.
> I never said the NAT makes my setup and more secure, like I have said
> already, you should still have a firewall on every single device.
This is not attacking your grammar but your "logic". How can you say
"I never said the NAT makes my setup and more secure" when you
literally said "however, NAT on the other hand does provide some
security"? C'mon, you _are_ supporting NAT as a security measure; and
that is patently false. This is not an opinion. If you cannot understand
that, then it is a waste of time to try and convince you what is
actually "secure" and what is not. Do you use NAT for IPv6? If not, then
you are not even consistent with your own "logic".
> I also doubt you like being insulted either, probably makes you feel
> pretty bad, so why do you do it to others?
I don't "like" being insulted, but I don't feel bad when it happens. I
have pretty thick skin, but I do acknowledge that does not apply to
everyone. I thought what I told you was more candor than "insult", so I
apologize.
> If you truly hate me, then I suggest setting a filter to ignore all
> emails from my address (polarian@polarian.dev), and if you don't, then
> stop trying to cause harm and only respond if you are going to be helpful.
>
> It is not right for any user to feel scared to ask for help, end of story!
I do not hate you or really anyone. I agree that one should not
"feel scared to ask for help", but I find honesty and logic more helpful
than trying to tiptoe around something in fear of offending someone. I
don't agree that that works for everyone though; so if candor upsets
one, then I will hopefully learn to not offer help to that person in
the future.
> I never said how much it increases the complexity by, but yes in general
> addition of virtual interfaces in any capacity adds complexity, it might
> even decrease the difficulty. Yet again you are misunderstanding my
> point, and instantly jumping out at me assuming I mean something
> differently.
Again, this is a _logical_ rebuttal not a grammar one: you _did_ say how
much it increases complexity by, namely "a lot". Here is the quote:
"Because vlan's increase complexity by a lot"
> What exactly was the point here? To prove how much more experience you
> have with networking and managed switches?
I tried to illustrate that it wasn't "complex" by any reasonable
definition of "complex", and that was a more "advanced" switch in
contrast to "simpler" ones that have a GUI you can use. This was to
support the argument that VLANs on neither OpenBSD nor the switch's
side are complex. Just look at how long you have tried to get your
setup to work. How can you call that less "complex"?
> I have only just turned 18, I am still a student, I do not have money to
> burn on managed switches. So yes I have no experienced with managed
> switches, or any fancy Juniper or Cisco gear, wouldn't really say fancy
> cause they are proprietary and that instantly discourages me.
Yet you have the money to pay for an expensive ISP and "premium to order
a custom laptop"? I also mentioned other switches that offer GUIs to
enable VLANs. Some of these can be had for $150 or less.
You paid for a more advanced setup but then aren't really willing to pay
for more properly configuring it. Bizarre.
> I will provide the information Stuart wanted to see in reply to his
> email if you are willing to help, but if all you are here to do is crush
> me under your many more years of experience, then I request you simply
> leave me alone.
"Many more years of experience"? Haha, not quite. I starting tinkering
with networking and OpenBSD in general two years ago in my free time. I
don't and likely never will possess the knowledge many networking
wizards have, but I suppose that makes my points that more damning: that
even I, a "dumb person on the Internet", pokes holes in your networking
setup. I don't have a PhD in networking nor am I even a network
administrator for a large company (or any company really).
I was reached out by at least one person privately that supported my
candor. While I won't use that to downplay your feelings, I do believe
that at least partially supports my response.
You have bitten off more than you can chew. You started this journey
"building a router for a company" when you lack _so_ much knowledge
that that is kinda scary. I'm glad you are learning, but how could you
possibly think you had the knowledge to start there? You have to learn
to walk before you learn to run. Now you expect the patience of
better people than me to hold your hand when you don't grasp the
basics.
No comments:
Post a Comment