On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM, David Beveridge <bevhost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Robert Arkiletian <robark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> It's not that bad. This page explains it clearly. >> >> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/three-levels-of-off > > That does describe what it does quite clearly, however, if you did not > read that and tried to assume which did what, it would be easy to get > them wrong. > > According to English language, it would have been better to put them > around the other way. However what's done is done and I think it > would be very bad to simply reverse them. > > I think it would be more clear, if mask was changed to prohibit. > Can I just add something else here. The mask keyword is not used in any sysctl commands from what I can see. In fact the service-start-up script is linked to /dev/null, which effectively hides (masks) it from the system, so that it cannot be found or started. Disabling the service simply tells the system to ignore the service for now as it is unwanted. It can be enabled later if required. So I guess it all depends on your point of view. What is disabled can be enabled. What is masked(hidden) cannot be found. What cannot be found cannot be enabled or started. dave -- 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
