1 |
On Saturday 09 May 2015 17:01:00 lee wrote: |
2 |
> Tom H <tomh0665@×××××.com> writes: |
3 |
> > The systemd developers' use of disable/mask isn't wrong simply because |
4 |
> > you disagree with them. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> No, it's wrong because they don't know what "disabled" means. Feel free |
7 |
> to look into dictionaries and to examine the use of the word "disabled" |
8 |
> in it's language to find out what it means. |
9 |
|
10 |
I've been through this before, and a certain contributor to e-mail lists is |
11 |
still in my kill filter because of it. Some computing people, mostly American |
12 |
in my experience, insist that "disabled" means the same as "switched off". No |
13 |
amount of pointing out the error of this makes any difference. They merely |
14 |
shrug and cite custom and practice. It was never custom or practice in my |
15 |
patch of the forest. |
16 |
|
17 |
Incidentally, there's another stupidity in an ancient CPU instruction set, I |
18 |
think 8080. If I move something from A to B it's no longer at A, but in the |
19 |
mov instruction it finishes up in both places. |
20 |
|
21 |
Sometimes I wish the language were still extended only by scholars. |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Rgds |
25 |
Peter |