On 07/28/2013 02:41 PM, lee wrote:
Yes, so why don't they use 'disable' to disable something rather than "masking" it so it isn't started during booting?
I think that the idea is that a service that's enabled is always started at boot, one that's disabled doesn't get started until it's needed (and only then) and one that's masked doesn't get started at all. (In fact, you can't start it while it's masked, even manually.)
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.
If nothing else, the meanings of the term are sufficiently ambiguous that even native English speakers don't find them intuitively obvious. If you do file a bug report, I'd suggest that it be listed as being UI related, and that you post a link here so that those of us who feel the same can add some "me too" comments and maybe give the maintainer more of a sense of how much of a problem it really is. Also, you should be aware that the entry for mask in the man page for systemctl explains just how thorough it is, because whoever maintains it might feel that the existing warning is all that's needed.
-- 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
