Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:33 -0700 From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: garys@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man7 security.7 src/sbin/init init.8 Message-ID: <xdirxdbxbm.rxd@mail.opusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20050907.062851.132863475.hrs@allbsd.org> (Hiroki Sato's message of "Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:28:51 %2B0900 (JST)") References: <200509031716.j83HG0J6071877@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050907.062851.132863475.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> "Gary W. Swearingen" <garys@FreeBSD.org> wrote
> ga> Files used both "securelevel" and either "secure level" or
> ga> "security level"; all are now "security level".
>
> Did we all agree with using "security level" instead of "secure level"?
> "secure level" is still used as a manual page alias (securelevel(8)),
> a sysctl MIB, and in other docs in doc/en_US.ISO8859-1, so I am afraid
> people will be confused.
It sounds like we're not going to agree. But if we're going to
standardize on ugly jargon, let's go all the way and make it
"securelevel" so it's obvious that it's ugly jargon imposed on the
documentation by the MIB, and not just ugly English, more so in some
places than others.
(Note that the two pages I was working on were both going to use
multiple versions and I simply choose the one I liked to standardize
within the page.)
In 5.4,
10 manpages use 'security level' in 34 lines.
1 manpage uses 'secure level' in 6 lines.
15 (about) manpages use 'securelevel' as a word maybe 20-25 times
but some might be using short-hand for the MIB.
Other manpages use the MIB, kern.securelevel.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xdirxdbxbm.rxd>