[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PATCH[1/1] Linux Security Guide



Just to clarify. I think it's an acceptable challenge to do that. As the
benefits from having re-usable documents for all skill-sets would be
pretty neat.

I've worked with demand management on technical documentation to fit
most skill-sets and I know it's possible to create documentation guiding
almost anyone thru anything. It's just damn hard work :-)
//M

tis 2009-01-06 klockan 18:01 +0100 skrev Magnus Glantz:
> OK. So..
> 
> 1) Finishing the Security Guide, including all aspects of security
> important for average desktop/system admin/paranoid-for-good-reason
> professional.
> 2) Compile guides focused on specific areas out of the Security Guide.
> 
> This may reflect how much I know of DocBook XML content re-use.
> But.. I'm thinking there is one concern with this.
> 
> It seems to put tough
> easy-to-read-and-understand-for-all-knowledge-levels demands on the
> Security Guide. I'm thinking this may also be challenging for demands on
> prerequisite knowledge. The level of prerequisite knowledge also needs
> to be low. Else it might get complicated to re-use components from the
> Security Guide when the audience is people that doesn't know or care
> much about security.
> 
> //M
> 
> 
> 
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:06:02 -0800
> > From: Karsten Wade <kwade redhat com>
> > Subject: Re: PATCH[1/1] Linux Security Guide
> > To: fedora-docs-list redhat com
> > Message-ID: <20090106080602 GJ8094 calliope phig org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:24:36PM -0500, Eric Christensen wrote:
> > 
> > > If we are missing something you think should be addressed please feel
> > > free to develop a chapter.
> > 
> > When Eric discussed the scope of the Security Guide with us on IRC,
> > this was before the Red Hat content was released and available as an
> > upstream to draw from.
> > 
> > However, we agreed then and later that it was a good idea to ...
> > 
> > * Include a wide range of security needs in the 'Security Guide'
> > 
> > * Make sure it was applicable to the "average desktop user", the
> >   "average system administrator", and the "average highly secure
> >   environment paranoid-for-good-reason professional."
> > 
> > (Eric, is that a fair assessment of the scope?)
> > 
> > That is a challenge, but a good one.
> > 
> > We can always take the larger upstream content and draw more than one
> > Fedora-focused guide from it, for example ...
> > 
> > * Fedora Home User Security Guide
> > * Fedora Secure Datacenter Guide
> > * Etc.
> > 
> > By putting all the content in to one upstream document, it is like the
> > Linux kernel -- useful for many sizes of hardware and environments.
> > 
> > Fortunately, DocBook XML makes it relatively easy to construct new
> > guides out of existing XML content by reorganizing and omitting.
> > 
> > - Karsten
> > -- 
> > Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
> > http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
> > AD0E0C41
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > Name: not available
> > Type: application/pgp-signature
> > Size: 189 bytes
> > Desc: not available
> > Url : https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20090106/847e3b22/attachment.bin
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> 
-- 
Best regards,
Magnus 'magnusg' Glantz
E-mail: mg hacka net
GPG Key: 0DB53317




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]