why do we use systemd?

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/10/14 16:03, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee  wrote:
>>> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
>>> that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
>>
>> Err.  no.   Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist and
>> there was no systematic way to disable dynamically started services.  So in
>> sysvinit,  if a service is D-Bus activated,  you had no good way to control
>> that.   systemd for the first time harmonized that process.
>>
> The fact that this discussion keeps coming back and that it keeps
> catching people out is something of a symptom that the names have been
> chosen wrongly. Yes you could call it 'banana' when a service is off
> by default and started by demand and 'handkerchief' when it is
> prevented from starting altogether, but words that actually clued
> people in to what they did would be more useful. You could call off on
> and on off and tell people they're thick because they didn't RTFM. But
> it's not helpful.
> As it is, 'disabled' has turned out to be a highly confusing name for
> the state it has been used to describe since its use is slightly at
> odds with its everyday meaning and what turns out to be expected by
> people familiar with chkconfig (which you might not expect since it
> doesn't use the name itself, though its man page does choose to use
> 'to disable a service' to describe 'off').
>
>

I'm not confused.

-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.