> On page https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Dovecot >
> In the SSL section it shows:
> ssl_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem
> ssl_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key
> At least in 16.04 the example should have less than in it as in:
> ssl_cert_file = </etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem
> ssl_key_file = </etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key
> I am not sure about earlier versions of Ubuntu and Dovecot.
Thanks for mentioning this, Darryl.
I was about to make the change, but then I noticed two other things:
* The page talks about /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf, while my
understanding is that nowadays the proper place for editing is
* The keys ssl_cert_file and ssl_key_file seem to be ssl_cert and
So since there seems to be more into it, I just added the "Needs
Updating" tag and referred to this message.
On 2016-09-24 00:36, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> On 2016-09-23 18:31, Darryl Baker wrote:
>> On page https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Dovecot >
> So since there seems to be more into it, I just added the "Needs
> Updating" tag and referred to this message.
When thinking about it, isn't the Dovecot page a perfect candidate for
deletion? Personally I think it is. Dovecot is covered in the official
server guide which is maintained. The wiki page is apparently not
maintained, and currently it's outdated and adds more confusion than
On 2016-09-25 16:34, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
>> I consider this to be an example of the doubtful quality of many
>> pages in the community help wiki.
> Would that happen if there was only one source of documentation?
Not sure of what you are asking. Can you please clarify?
On 2016-09-25 17:54, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
>> Can you please clarify?
> What if we only had a single source of information, instead of two
> slitted. Would that lead to a better quality documentation?
It wasn't my intention to bring this thread into the discussion on
whether the help wiki should be kept or dropped as a whole.
Assuming that most people think that the community help wiki is a
valuable resource, the point I wanted to rise in the light of a concrete
example was that we need to agree on a sensible approach for moderating
the help wiki, including deleting pages with doubtful value and which
nobody seems to take sufficient responsibility for. The available
resources for moderating the wiki is very limited, so we need a model
for moderating it which takes that fact into account, and still ensures
that the content keeps being reasonably relevant and correct long term.
Occasionally adding tags is not sufficient.
On 2016-09-25 20:37, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
>> It wasn't my intention to bring this thread into the discussion on
>> whether the help wiki should be kept or dropped as a whole.
> I mean what would happen if help.ubuntu.com and wiki.ubuntu.com were
> a single resource and editable by anybody. Won't that lead to better
> quality documentation?
Aha, you meant the other way around... Never thought of it. A set of
randomly contributed piece of docs where nobody feels responsible for
anything. How does it sound to you? ;)
> Aha, you meant the other way around... Never thought of it. A set of
> randomly contributed piece of docs where nobody feels responsible for
> anything. How does it sound to you? ;)
I was rather thinking about pages maintained by their developers, but
that the community could extend themselves.
You see, in my experience having two things for the same purpose rarely
work well. And the sole reason why the wiki isn't good enough for
official documentation is simply because nobody took the time to rule it.
The two domains are split because of avoiding the problems that we all
know should be faced nowadays. Like setting how to organise pages,
making people in charge of it, upgrading the wiki engine, and deploying
This is specially important because the documentation not only informs
users, but also organises all the work-flows around Ubuntu. It
influences the quality of Ubuntu in general, and its potential to
attract new contributors.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> You see, in my experience having two things for the same purpose rarely work
You're mistaken. The wiki at wiki.ubuntu.com is a community wiki for
teams in Ubuntu to organize their work, like project team information,
meeting logs, etc. The community help wiki at
help.ubuntu.com/community is for user-facing documentation about
Ubuntu itself. This is a very logical split.
Are you perhaps talking about the official documentation maintained at
help.ubuntu.com vs. the wiki at help.ubuntu.com/community? In this
case of this thread, the reason two pages of documentation exist is
because there is a higher bar for the official documentation that is
packaged and shipped in the repositories, and sometimes folks writing
docs have just wanted to toss their notes quickly on the community
help wiki instead of going through the contribution process for the
official docs. Writing formal documentation is quite a bit different
than contributing to a wiki, so I'm not convinced that getting rid of
one in favor of the other would improve anything, I think we'd just
lose the contributors who use the one we get rid of.
> The two domains are split because of avoiding the problems that we all know
> should be faced nowadays. Like setting how to organise pages, making people
> in charge of it, upgrading the wiki engine, and deploying anti-vandalism
No they weren't, and I'd be curious as to where you learned this. They
are different domains because they are entirely different things.
Elizabeth K. Joseph:
> Writing formal documentation is quite a bit different
> than contributing to a wiki.
Look at wikipedia: it has build the highest quality encyclopedia that
exists, based on the wiki model and allowing anybody to contribute. The
same goes to the Arch Linux wiki. I don't know why we couldn't do the same.
But after thinking about this topic for a while, I understand that's a
big step to take.
Instead I would to propose a different approach, that we organise the
wiki as an official documentation would deserve. Then if that's
successful, with the facts in hand, we could consider if it's worth
keeping both domains.
On the other hand I think we are better talking about this after the
wiki has been ported to a new engine.