| HN Mirror

I've taken great pains to try and provide as much info as possible, in as easy non-jargon terms as possible, for the layman. I have also gone to great lengths (days on a single item, weeks to follow up on research and contact with experts) in order to verify things, and provide relevant links. You can take me on my word, or not: but I've basically been living this stuff 24/7, 365 days a year, for 8 years.

I can still get things wrong, and I can always improve things, but please, don't label this as - promoted: I have never promoted it, and internally it has always been labeled as a hardened setup and a template - not understandable: there is a limit to how simple comments can be made. Some jargon is needed. At least I provide links to back up what I say and also for those interested in digging deeper. And at least I provide those comments in the first place. - questionable: I know what I'm doing

I personally, know fully well what each and every setting does - well, at least the outcome and consequences of them being changed. It's hard to find a balance, but this is not a simple task. The user.js is primarily "fairly hardened" and as a result, breaks things. That cannot be helped. It is promoted internally as a TEMPLATE, not a cure-all.

Where am I lacking in disclaimers? Caveats? Do you mean I need to point out that things break with some prefs? We do already, and we're adding in [SETUP] tags that pinpoint items that can cause breakage e.g [SETUP-WEB] indicates that this pref might cause breakage, and we say what breaks or it should be painfully aware without saying (or at least that's the plan: the comments can always be improved for sure).

"but the caveats are not properly explained for many of these things" - can you enlighten me as to where. Feel free to contribute and improve it at the github repo (where it will be easier for me to deal with, since your criticism seems to indicate I have a lot of editing to do)