On 07/10/14 16:03, Ian Malone wrote: > On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote: >>> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in >>> that things can still be started even when they are disabled. >> >> Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist and >> there was no systematic way to disable dynamically started services. So in >> sysvinit, if a service is D-Bus activated, you had no good way to control >> that. systemd for the first time harmonized that process. >> > The fact that this discussion keeps coming back and that it keeps > catching people out is something of a symptom that the names have been > chosen wrongly. Yes you could call it 'banana' when a service is off > by default and started by demand and 'handkerchief' when it is > prevented from starting altogether, but words that actually clued > people in to what they did would be more useful. You could call off on > and on off and tell people they're thick because they didn't RTFM. But > it's not helpful. > As it is, 'disabled' has turned out to be a highly confusing name for > the state it has been used to describe since its use is slightly at > odds with its everyday meaning and what turns out to be expected by > people familiar with chkconfig (which you might not expect since it > doesn't use the name itself, though its man page does choose to use > 'to disable a service' to describe 'off'). > > I'm not confused. -- If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige. -- 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
