On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:52:55PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > How about "broken"? Shorter, more straightforward, and avoids the > > implication that the service was intentionally taken down for maintenance > > (my first reaction both here and on Solaris). > > Well, I cannot make everybody happy. > > Some folks complain if we make up new words, if equivalent words are > already established. > > Other folks complain if we reuse existing words, because they like > others better. There's a clear difference in the cases -- it's better if you use existing terminology from what you're replacing, but if you're borrowing from other related systems, some thought should be put into it. Solaris probably picked that term because it sounds fancy and vendor-y. That doesn't make it automatically the best choice. I don't think this is an important change, in the sense that I've noted others as important. But, like changing "isolate" to "switch-to", it improves the user experience. With terms like "isolate" and "maintenance", systemd comes with quirky new terminology to learn. With "broken" when a service is broken, it's self-explanatory. "Needs maintenance" would also work, but it's too long. So: I am not suggesting these things to harass you, or even because I want you to make me happy. (In fact, I'm *already* happy.) I'm suggesting them because I think they're improvements that will make systemd more pleasant to use, which will in turn increase acceptance. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
