[REVIEW REQUEST]: rctl section

[Chris Rees]

On 2 Feb 2013 15:40, "Warren Block" <wblock at wonkity.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Tom Rhodes wrote:
>
>> Long time, no chat.  It's been awhile, so I would like to get some
>> review on this section.  In this case, I have used some generic
>> results (testing them with a forkbomb, smart, I know) and I would
>> like to get some pre-commit feedback.  Thanks in advance to anyone
>> who loans me a few moments of their time!
>
>
> Nice to hear from you!  Comments inline below.
>
>
>> Index: security/chapter.xml
>> ===================================================================
>> --- chapter.xml (revision 40807)
>> +++ chapter.xml (working copy)
>> @@ -97,6 +97,11 @@
>>        <para>Have an idea of what Process Accounting is and how to
>>          enable it on &os;.</para>
>>       </listitem>
>> +
>> +      <listitem>
>> +       <para>Understand what the resource limits database and
>> +         how to utilize it to excerpt more control over users.</para>
>
>
> s/what//
> s/excerpt/exert/.  "how to utilize it to control user resources" might be
better.
>
>
>> +      </listitem>
>>     </itemizedlist>
>>
>>     <para>Before reading this chapter, you should:</para>
>> @@ -4149,4 +4154,116 @@
>>        pages.</para>
>>     </sect2>
>>   </sect1>
>> +
>> +  <sect1 id="security-resourcelimits">
>> +    <sect1info>
>> +      <authorgroup>
>> +       <author>
>> +         <firstname>Tom</firstname>
>> +         <surname>Rhodes</surname>
>> +         <contrib>Contributed by </contrib>
>> +       </author>
>> +      </authorgroup>
>> +    </sect1info>
>> +
>> +    <title>Resource limits</title>
>
>
> s/limits/Limits/
> textproc/igor can check these.
>
>
>
>> +
>> +    <indexterm>
>> +      <primary>Resource limits</primary>
>> +    </indexterm>
>> +
>> +    <para>For years, &os; has made use of a resource limits
>> +      database controlled through a flat file
>
>
> s/file/file,/
>
>
>> +      <filename>/etc/login.conf</filename>.  While it has
>> +      been discussed previously and is still supported, it
>> +      is not the most optimal method of controlling resources.
>> +      The flat file requires users to be divided into various
>> +      group labels known as classes, which require changes not
>> +      only to this flat file but also the password database.
>> +      Potentially, a single, more constrained user would require
>
>
> I want to say that the comma after "single" is not needed, but that's not
quite right.  Maybe if "more constrained" was hyphenated.

Potentially a single, more constrained user...

Chris