why do we use systemd?

[lee]

David Benfell <benfell at parts-unknown.org> writes:

> lee writes:
>>
>> I don't mind this idea.  Yet when I disable something, I expect it to be
>> disabled.
>
> This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed
> separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm
> inclined to agree that the terms are poorly chosen.

Why should it be seen separately?  Poorly chosen terms is a feature of
systemd like any other it may have, and this feature leads straightaway
to unexpected and undesired results when used.  That the authors even
deny fixing it is ... well, I'm not sure how to call that.

> I guess the concept of 'mask' is as in to disguise, as in to hide. For
> me, that's two steps of abstraction and I don't normally infer the
> second from the first. So it throws me too.

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.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)