4 ms·
Sorry but part of making information accessible is communicating using less formal language. I could have titled the post “A comparative analysis of certificate
by mmalone 7y ago
Sorry but part of making information accessible is communicating using less formal language. I could have titled the post “A comparative analysis of certificate-based authentication relative to other SSH authentication mechanisms”. I am capable of using fancier words too. But no one would have read it. I’d have been preaching to the choir.
Perhaps the title could have been more diplomatic. Perhaps I was not sensitive enough to the feelings of folks who use non-certificate-based SSH authentication. But it’s just a title. I meant no harm. <3
Do you have any feedback on the content itself? :)
- prepend 7y agoIt’s not the formality of your language that is creativity negative attention for your org. It’s the hyperbole and inaccuracy. It’s quite possible to be accurate in my language and still speak informally. It bugs me a little that you seem to be deflecting criticism and minimizing it rather than just accepting it and moving on. I didn’t think your headline wasn’t “diplomatic” enough and don’t think that’s relevant to this comment hierarchy where you respond.
- mmalone 7y agoI accept your criticism. Sorry.
- prepend 7y agoThanks. As a big fan of intelligent cert usage we can now get onto more interesting discussion.
- cerberusss 7y agoI think the author is correct in deflecting the criticism here. There's a lot of bashing about headlines and such, and not much on the content itself, which would've been more interesting to me.