On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 20:58 +0000, Radzykewycz, T (Radzy) wrote: > Yes, I don't disagree with anything you've said. > > My point is that this is supposed to be simple and easy-to-understand. It's intended (I think) to address the complaint that many people have, that SE Linux is too complex, which I'm sure you've all heard. > > If it gets too complex, then people will stop reading, and just continue with their current pre-conception that it's "too hard." If that happens, then the effort to put it together is wasted. I don't want that. I would prefer if this allows people to get past their "too hard" ideas. And all complexity that is added makes that more probable. Even the goal of addressing the big picture, at all, makes it more complex. > > If a kid is learning "see spot" then the idea of a pack dominance hierarchy is advanced material, as is mention of displays of aggressive behavior. To say nothing of the mere word "vociferous." The pack dominance hierarchy and descriptions of behavior are necessary for the big picture, but they aren't basic introductory material. > > I don't think there isn't room for improvement. I just hope that trying for the big picture confuses more people than it needs to, especially since too many people already think it's too complex. > > I also think that it's pretty good, as it is right now, for what it is trying to do. So: kudos to the authors! :) > Sure i like the article as well, and i also think there is room for improvement. The articles title is one of those areas. It was the main reason for my reply. I do not believe that the title reflects the contents accurately. If the title would be something like ... "Your visual teaser for SELinux policy enforcement" ... Then in my mind there would be no doubt that the article achieved its goal. -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
