A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me anything regarding the GWN...
So I fired up a web browser and there it was - first section in the GWN [1]. Seems the GWN authors have read my blog entry [2] and decided to bring their own version of it to the public. * The GWN talks about WiFi Protected Access (WPA). My Blog talks about IEEE 802.11/wired authentication in general. * The GWN talks about "my plans" for deprecating xsupplicant. My blog doesn't say anything about this. * The GWN talks about removing xsupplicant from Gentoo Portage. My blog certainly doesn't say anything about this. * The GWN doesn't even link to my blog entry, from which they must have gotten the initial idea for this article, thus not allowing their readers to see that the information provided is incorrect. Now, why wasn't I contacted prior to quoting my blog in the GWN? A simple "will this be ok?" kind of mail would have sufficed. I could have pointed out the wrong assumptions in the article before it was spread to thousands of users world wide, and instead we could have had a concise article which reflected the truth. Instead I now face the possibility of being flamed in my inbox for "my plans to remove xsupplicant from Gentoo Portage". I've already been approached twice on IRC about these "plans"... I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for the developer to accept. Regards, Brix [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20051128-newsletter.xml [2]: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/brix/2005/11/25/wpa_supplicant_vs_xsupplicant -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpFzV36nVCaj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
