Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

undeadly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#71

Post by rsmarples »

daneel_w wrote: post #37
tedunangst wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the current path of least resistance would be unwind with unwind.conf forwarding to unbound.

Yes. Clumsy. It's an unusually awkward design choice to have the software detect if another specific application is running in order to trigger the behavior, instead of just giving the user the ability to configure it. In my opinion this whole new dhcpleased/resolvd setup is poorly planned, as it contrives the gruesome trick of being both a privacy/integrity problem (no user control over ISP DNS making its way into r…

I agree, although I am biased!

resolvconf was designed to take DNS inputs from many sources and allow the user to tailor these to their needs.

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#72

Post by bmn__ »

circularfoyers wrote: post #69
bmn__ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is incorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067431

Your own comment that you've linked here, which mentions Russ Allbery, has him quoted saying, "Most of those [systemd] components are clearly superior to anything we have available now on Linux platforms and will be used in the distribution going forward". Then there's Fedora, which is upstream of Red Hat, who has many of it's contributors as Red Hat employees, so I don't see how it's odd that they would adopt softwa…

Are you just going to ignore the evidence that goes counter to the narrative you want to establish?

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#73

Post by op00to »

kasabali wrote: post #58
op00to wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t see this with systemd either, so that’s good.

Which part of "gently pushing" didn't you see? https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-Se...

The last time I read that thread I was just learning to ride a dinosaur.

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#74

Post by circularfoyers »

bmn__ wrote: post #72
circularfoyers wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own comment that you've linked here, which mentions Russ Allbery, has him quoted saying, "Most of those [systemd] components are clearly superior to anything we have available now on Linux platforms and will be used in the distribution going forward". Then there's Fedora, which is upstream of Red Hat, who has many of it's contributors as Red Hat employees, so I don't see how it's odd that they would adopt softwa…

Are you just going to ignore the evidence that goes counter to the narrative you want to establish?

I'm not intentionally ignoring any evidence, so I invite you to elaborate on what you're alluding to.

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#75

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

chmod775 wrote: post #43
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the process I pulled in a javascript dependency via policykit, which is giving me pause and I am re-evaluating if my approach is correct here. To be fair, policykit is great. It solves a real problem (namely is this user allowed to peform this action , which traditional POSIX permissions do not solve in a portably) in a very sane way that is totally optional to opt in to. Should polkit use a different, turing co…

> Lua or some other bespoke monstrosity Lua is definitely the opposite of 'bespoke monstrosity'. It's pretty much the intersection of tiny interpreter, fast execution, and simple language.

Apologies if I mistyped this, Lua is not remotely a monstrosity. It's great! But I don't think it would be appropriate here, and I think more developers can grok JS in this day and age.

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#76

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

theamk wrote: post #10
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in the case of Linux distributions do they let the older solution remain available.

Sure they do, I run a few systems which use systemd with older dhcp daemons. And for example Raspbian uses systemd for process management, but completely disables its network parts, using their own solutions instead. One of the best parts of the systemd is how easy it is to disable/replace any part of it. The resolved and timesyncd are easy, but even things like journald have a mode when it keeps no files on disk, an…

This is what Torvalds had to say about the developers of systemd

https://web.archive.org/web/20161210172826/http://article.gm...

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#77

Post by gnubison »

thristian wrote: post #44
someperson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't POSIX and Linux Standard Base already mandate certain scripting languages to be preinstalled, such as Python?

I've heard a rumour that POSIX mandates that Perl be installed, although I haven't been able to substantiate it. POSIX-described Turing-complete interpreters include at leat the Bourne shell, awk, and sed, none of which you probably want to use for implementing a security policy. Apparently LSB 5.0 mandates[1] both Perl (5.8) and Python (2.4), but that won't pacify anyone with an axe to grind about applications makin…

> I've heard a rumour that POSIX mandates that Perl be installed, although I haven't been able to substantiate it.

It’s not: https://shellhaters.org

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#78

Post by pjmlp »

dralley wrote: post #39
csande17 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that Linux is pretty much the only operating system where users can mix and match core system components. That's precisely why people get so mad about systemd! If I wanted to use an operating system where all the components were tightly coupled and made by a single vendor, I'd use Windows, or macOS, or a BSD. (In fact I do use those operating systems when that's what I want.) But I would also like for ot…

They are free to make that criticism but they should do it without invoking "the Unix philosophy" which Linux has never adhered to. Unix never had interchangable components like that.

Specially because "the Unix philosophy" as preached by Linux afficionados never happened in real UNIX, it keeps being preached as some kind of cargo cult by people that weren't even around during the UNIX wars heyday.

Re: dhcpleased(8) and resolvd(8) enabled in base, replacing dhclient(8)

#79

Post by tinus_hn »

op00to wrote: post #73
kasabali wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "gently pushing" didn't you see? https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-Se...

The last time I read that thread I was just learning to ride a dinosaur.

That must have been a long time ago. Remind me, when did the project recant this position?
Post reply on HN