Nick Bright wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts the
>> permanent configuration, the one that will be applied at startup.
>> Another changes the current running environment without altering the
>> startup config. From a sysadmin point of view this is desirable since
>> changes to a running system are often performed for empirical testing.
>> Leaving ephemeral state changes permanently fixed in the startup
>> config could, and almost certainly would eventually, lead to serious
>> problem during a reboot. Likewise, immediately introducing a state
>> change to a running system when reconfiguring system startup options
>> is just begging for an operations incident report. It may not be
>> intuitive to some but it is certainly the logical way of handling this.
>
> I certainly don't disagree with this behavior.
>
> What I disagree with is documented commands _*not working and failing
> silently*_.
>
I agree, and it seems to be the way systemd works, as a theme, as it were.
I restart a service... and it tells me *nothing* at all. I have to run a
second command, to ask the status. I've no idea why it's "bad form" to
tell me progress, and final result. You'd think they were an old New
Englander.....
mark, ayu'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
