Nick Bright wrote: > On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: >> This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts the >> permanent configuration, the one that will be applied at startup. >> Another changes the current running environment without altering the >> startup config. From a sysadmin point of view this is desirable since >> changes to a running system are often performed for empirical testing. >> Leaving ephemeral state changes permanently fixed in the startup >> config could, and almost certainly would eventually, lead to serious >> problem during a reboot. Likewise, immediately introducing a state >> change to a running system when reconfiguring system startup options >> is just begging for an operations incident report. It may not be >> intuitive to some but it is certainly the logical way of handling this. > > I certainly don't disagree with this behavior. > > What I disagree with is documented commands _*not working and failing > silently*_. > I agree, and it seems to be the way systemd works, as a theme, as it were. I restart a service... and it tells me *nothing* at all. I have to run a second command, to ask the status. I've no idea why it's "bad form" to tell me progress, and final result. You'd think they were an old New Englander..... mark, ayu'