4 ms·

As a colouring book, it's not great.

• wst_ 10y ago
  Graphics are far from professional level, unfortunately. I would throw away coloring idea. Instead, I'd put a decent graphics. It could be even made into some simple story.
• munificent 10y ago
  The writing is all messed up too. :( Very first sentence: > The SELinux primary model or enforcement is called type enforcement. "or" should be "of" or "for". I'm not sure which, because it doesn't even tell you what enforcement means. First page: > Imagine a system where we define types on objects like cats and dogs. "On" isn't a preposition you usually use with "type". You can say things have a type, or are a type, but "define a type on" is a unfamiliar construction. > A cat and dog are process types. I'm confused. Do they have types defined on them, or are they the types? Earlier, it said they are objects, now they are process types? > We have a class of objects that they want to interact with which we call food. And I want to add types to the food, cat_chow and dog_chow. Using "they" to refer to a noun from the previous page is a little confusing. "food" should be quoted. You can start a sentence with "And", but it feels gratuitous here since the previous sentence is short. > As a policy writer, I would say that a dog has permission to eat dog_chow write this rule in policy, as shown below. What happened between "dog_chow" and "write" here? The latter half looks like a random fragment of text. What is a "policy writer"? > food and a cat has permission to eat cat_chow food. In SELinux we would We would what?
  • SloopJon 10y ago
    The last two sentences that you complain about are on a two-page spread: "As a policy writer, I would say that a dog has permission to eat dog_chow food and a cat has permission to eat cat_chow food. In SELinux we would write this rule in policy, as shown below."