Darren J Moffat wrote: > Dan Mick wrote: >> It seems to me tha the problem is there are two states and three cases: >> >> 1) administrative disablement because of administrator preference >> 2) "maintenance" because of a correctable error (s/w or h/w config, >> dependency problems) >> 3) "can't run" because a required h/w or condition is not present (not >> right platform, absence of device, absence of particular bus >> technology, etc.) >> >> 1 maps to 'disabled', 2 maps to 'maintenance', but 3 really is a >> different case. There's no purely-administrative action that can >> resolve it like most 'maintenance' states, but it's not an arbitrary >> rescindable policy decision either. > > Agreed. There is a distinction that doesn't appear to be clear between > the human admin disabled this vs the system choose to disable this. Both > result in it not being run but they are different. > > Whats more from a security audit trail view they are very different and > it would be nice it we could express that difference. >
I'll disagree. If the state is "can't run" because of a missing dependency, then it is just like any other service which has a dependency. Why is hardware different? More to the point, hardware doesn't have code, so you are really dependent on software associated with hardware, no? -- richard
