Joe Zeff <joe@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 07/28/2013 08:03 AM, lee wrote: >> However, when I look at online dictionaries, they say that "disabled" >> refers to people the abilities of which are somehow limited, so that >> word won't be applicable here at all. Services are not people, and it >> is a bad idea to use misleading terms like this. > > In English, words often have more than one meaning, depending on > context. In a computer context, the word means that something has > been turned off and isn't available for use. That's exactly what I mean. That something is _not_ turned off and still available for use _despite_ it has been disabled, then that is a bug. I'm not a native English speaker, that's why I referred to dictionaries. > When you use systemctl to disable a service, you're telling it not to > start the service at boot, although other services can later start it. > If you mask the service, it's completely unavailable until you reverse > the process. Yes, so why don't they use 'disable' to disable something rather than "masking" it so it isn't started during booting? Do the native English speakers here agree that 'disable' means to turn something off so it's not available for use? If so, I'll make a bug report about this. -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
