On 09/07/14 05:35 AM, users-request@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: On 7 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:36:37 -0700 From: Joe Zeff On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote:
When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled.
No. When a service is disabled it can still be started after boot, but when it's masked, it can't be started at all.
Do understand that I'm defending neither systemd nor the deveolper's choice of terminology. I'm merely correcting what looks like a misstatement of how it works.
Yes! And how it *works* is not what that term, used normally describes. Which is the point being made. 'Disabled' should imply 'NEVER' 'Masked' is not a word which should be used in this context.
Selinux got the terms correct, IMHO there is NO reason why systemd should not use the same terms:
ENABLED means ALWAYS PERMISSIVE means SOMETIMES DISABLED means NEVER
These are the start-up default states and should have no effect on using start or stop directly. Systemd however mis-manages this as well, so that you cannot start a 'masked' service
So 'masked' is actually NEVER NOT EVEN WHEN YOU WANT IT. and DISABLED means SOMETIMES, but there is no way to set a state where the computer cannot under any circumstances but you can MANUALLY.*
This thread contains numerous instances of why systemd is not well architected, although what it does do, it seems to do well. What it tries to do seems to be a 'reach which exceeds its grasp'. And to boot, the documentation, although extensive is far too abstract and blatherfull to be actually useful.
Geoff
*I mean that I should not have to 'unmask', 'start' and 'mask' the service to achieve an 'only-when-*I*-want-it' start-up of a service. Setting 'disabled' means that the system can start it whenever it feels the need.