why do we use systemd?

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 08 July 2014, David Benfell sent:
> 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. 

If it'd been my choice, disabled would have meant exactly what the word
suggests it means to the average person, and for services that could be
run on-demand, would have used a status called on-demand.

It's be enough having to put up with real world metaphors being
shoehorned into computing technology (e.g. desktops, folders, and
files), but it's worse when illogically applied (where "disabled" simply
means "not straight away").

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.

George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.