On Saturday 09 May 2015 17:01:00 lee wrote: > Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> writes: > > The systemd developers' use of disable/mask isn't wrong simply because > > you disagree with them. > > No, it's wrong because they don't know what "disabled" means. Feel free > to look into dictionaries and to examine the use of the word "disabled" > in it's language to find out what it means.
I've been through this before, and a certain contributor to e-mail lists is still in my kill filter because of it. Some computing people, mostly American in my experience, insist that "disabled" means the same as "switched off". No amount of pointing out the error of this makes any difference. They merely shrug and cite custom and practice. It was never custom or practice in my patch of the forest. Incidentally, there's another stupidity in an ancient CPU instruction set, I think 8080. If I move something from A to B it's no longer at A, but in the mov instruction it finishes up in both places. Sometimes I wish the language were still extended only by scholars. -- Rgds Peter
