Do I need avahi?

[Ian Malone]

On 30 July 2013 23:55, Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> wrote:
> David Beveridge wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Robert Arkiletian <robark at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not that bad. This page explains it clearly.
>>>
>>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/three-levels-of-off
>>
>>
>> That does describe what it does quite clearly, however, if you did not
>> read that and tried to assume which did what, it would be easy to get
>> them wrong.
>>
>> According to English language, it would have been better to put them
>> around the other way.  However what's done is done and I think it
>> would be very bad to simply reverse them.
>>
>> I think it would be more clear, if mask was changed to prohibit.
>>
> And perhaps as I suggested earlier, disable could be augmented by "noauto"
> as well.
>
> This is a "old guy" vs. "new guy" thing, perhaps, people who started with
> command line are used to reading documentation and having some idea what
> things do before using them. In this case it is auto start being disabled,
> not the service. People who only use GUI expect the interface will prevent
> them from shooting themselves in the foot.
>
> I do like adding noauto and autorun, and prohibit and allow as synonyms and
> preferred usage.
>

To avoid breakage would probably be best to deprecate old terms in
future use (particularly gui interfaces) and simply provide the new
ones that don't already have meanings (with suitably documented
equivalency notes).

Aside: In the end you do always need to read the documentation when
you need precision. (And hope it exists.)


-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk