On 28/07/13 05:41 PM, lee wrote:
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.
I was an editor before I retired - disable means to make
unavailable. Period.
--
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
