On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:11:49 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > It takes less that a minute to find out 'man chcon'' : > http://linux.die.net/man/1/chcon > > u -> user > r -> role > t -> type > > Manual modification of the security contexts aren't really expected of > most people. With all due respect (which, yes, I know to be vast), the passage above is almost a parade example of the problem. Only the last sentence conveys any meaning whatever to me. Item : I have reset SELinux on the testbed machine to permissive, just to be able to c&p error messages (another item). After all my years of running linux, I can neither guess where chcon came into this, nor make head or tail of what I see when some guru tells me (no matter how politely) to Read The Fine Manual -- not even when I already have. The manual is written for the pros; it enables someone who has already mastered the topic of any page to check on any disremembered details. But its very succinctness (which the presumption of mastery affords) is as a cast iron wall to the uninitiated. Every line assumes not just mastery of its own topic, but of a thousand *other* man pages. Anyone uninitiated, confronted with almost any man page, either feels like the protagonist of Kafka's Trial, or doesn't see the problem. I doubt I can make sense of 1/79 of the man pages I read -- and even those are only the ones for things I've managed to do over and over, like scp. Item: I remembered in the night where I've been seeing admonitions to reboot so often -- in the most frequent error message (most frequent here, anyway) from the troubleshooter. It tells me to touch something *and* *reboot*. More on this subthread in another post. -- Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
