systemctl uses ambiguous terms (was: Do I need avahi?)

[lee]

Tim <ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> writes:

> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:23 +0200, lee wrote:
>> f "disable" and "mask" were to be replaced, they should still be
>> available for some time along with the new words. That might create
>> more confusion than it could do any good.
>
> Could that be any worse?!?

Hm, maybe not.

> Currently, we have something "disabled" that doesn't do what we expect,
> based on prior behaviour, nor what the word means.  You have to wonder
> how many people are using it thinking it means something else, both from
> the end-users, and those writing software using the system.

True --- I've been thinking that disabled means disabled.  Now can you
really question every option any software might have, especially when
its meaning seems as clear and obvious as "disabled", because it just
might mean something else nowadays?

> And what should be used?  Seeing as we, now, have more modes than
> before, perhaps it's time to come up with new, and unambiguous names.
> What one-word terms accurately describe the different modes?
>
>   active  (will be running)

I'd call that "enabled".

>   waiting (will be run if needed)

"Waiting" would suggest that something is running, waiting for something
--- like emacs is running and waiting for my input.  That would be
misleading.

In this context, I'd call this mode "enabled" as well.  It's merely
another way of being enabled in that something doesn't get started right
away or not at all.  Whether it does get started or not doesn't matter,
it is still enabled because it can be started.

>   ignored (will not be run, at all)

I'd call this "disabled".  "Ignored" doesn't imply that something is
disabled.

> Something else?

Yes --- do they have to be single-word terms?  How about:


run-at-boot
run-as-needed
run-never


... and/or perhaps variations like "start-at-boot", "start-as-needed",
"start-never".  Then those could be shortened like:


boot | always
needed | ondemand
never | disable[d]


With that, something like "systemctl never avahi-daemon" would be clear,
and "systemctl disable avahi" would do what users expect.

Well, I've made a bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990177


-- 
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)