Update Qubes doc #1568
Update Qubes doc #1568
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
You should stick with the buttons at the bottom |
|
I think a schema would be appropriate for qubesos |
|
I think this LGTM at a glance, but I do want to go through this later tonight and update some of the wording to make it more stylistically similar to the rest of the website (we shouldn't use words like 'users,' etc. I'm not sure if we have style guidelines actually published anywhere). Also, if this is complete could you update the checklist on the original issue? :) |
nopeitsnothing
requested review from
dngray and
jonaharagon
and removed request for
matchboxbananasynergy,
dngray and
jonaharagon
Not sure if this makes a lot of sense. It says "Desktop/PC" but has Tux as the icon, and the page starts talking about Linux distributions right away and then lists Qubes, which isn't really a Linux distribution. I'm not 100% opposed to combining the two pages or have a general desktop OS page, but it would need a serious refactoring of the Linux page which I think is out of scope for this PR. I would leave the Qubes page in Recommendations as it was for now so that we can add the additional information about Qubes, and then decide whether we want to reorganize the content. |
|
I propose moving Qubes OS to a new section like Security Focused Distributions. There's an anonymity focused section already: |
nopeitsnothing
requested review from
jonaharagon
and removed request for
dngray
docs/os/qubes-overview.en.md
Outdated
|  | ||
| <figcaption>Qubes window borders, Credit: Qubes Screenshots</figcaption> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Should I use Qubes? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Should I use Qubes? | |
| ## Should I use Qubes? |
I don't understand why this is the heading that was chosen here.
Nothing below this heading elaborates on the question of "Should I use Qubes". It merely lists a few features and provides some more context into how communication across VMs is handled. Can someone shed some light on why this wording was chosen?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing below this heading elaborates on the question of "Should I use Qubes". It merely lists a few features and provides some more context into how communication across VMs is handled. Can someone shed some light on why this wording was chosen?
Because I wrote it this way. Your wording makes no sense, I am the only “someone” that can explain why it was written this way.
One might consider the tone when replying to someone online, as it can be misread or misconstrued from the way they wrote it, which, in this case, sounds passive-aggressive at best. I would prefer a solution offered in the conversation, as opposed to stating what is wrong without offering it.
See my proposed change in 25f4f94.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because I wrote it this way. Your wording makes no sense, I am the only “someone” that can explain why it was written this way.
Multiple people have made changes to this document, and I did not know whether this was written by you originally, or if it was added by someone else after the fact. Furthermore, even if you were the one to initially put that heading in, I was wondering why it was left untouched when others reviewed the PR. Hence, I was not directing this question exclusively to you, but you as well as others that have changed things in the PR thus far.
One might consider the tone when replying to someone online, as it can be misread or misconstrued from the way they wrote it, which, in this case, sounds passive-aggressive at best. I would prefer a solution offered in the conversation, as opposed to stating what is wrong without offering it.
I apologize if the way I worded anything came across as passive aggressive, which was not my intention. The reason why I did not propose a change at that point was because I wanted to first get some context on the decision to phrase it that way, which may have convinced me it made sense.
You shouldn't assume the worst of people. Sometimes, people aren't trying to be passive-aggressive, but are rather posing a genuine question. A lot of drama can be avoided if you give people the benefit of the doubt.
See my proposed change in 25f4f94.
I think that looks a lot better, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was hoping so. In the meantime, I don't think I have any more changes unless @dngray or other PG staff recommend anything specific. I'm open to suggestions. I think going into great detail about qrexec, inter-vm pipelines, etc., would just bewilder and frustrate the average person, so I will leave out more technical things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Qubes OS community is active and naturally Qubes OS docs is where you should be going for authority on all things Qubes. I like to think of this page as a showcase of some of the main reasons why you may use Qubes OS though from a high level - if that makes sense.
Ask @jonaharagon. I did not change the icons for this page. BUT, I can say it makes sense having this title, since you only recommend Linux Desktop OS on the website, and those are all Linux distributions suited for use on desktop which are listed in the cards. |
Co-Authored-By: Sharp-tailed Grouse <sharptail@riseup.net> Co-authored-by: matchboxbananasynergy <107055883+matchboxbananasynergy@users.noreply.github.com>
|
This pull request has been mentioned on Privacy Guides. There might be relevant details there: |
Add better documentation to Qubes OS entry
Affected link: https://www.privacyguides.org/qubes/
Changes so far:
Resolves: #1465 - comment concerns and questions there to avoid cruft here