Why do we use systemd

[R. G. Newbury]

On 09/07/14 05:35 AM, users-request at 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.