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

Systemd v218

lists.freedesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Systemd v218

#31

Post by abofh »

digi_owl wrote: post #14
qznc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. Systemd's pid 0 process does not do anything with or about PPPoE. Networkd does. Networkd is a daemon which manages the network configuration and PPPoE makes sense in that context.

But can networkd operate without systemd sitting as pid0? Btw, that very line is why we have these debates. There is no clear way to indicate if you are talking about just the init part or the whole of systemd. This in large part because the name has stayed while the goals have constantly shifted. And sometimes i wonder if the proponents wants it this way, as they can play the "superior" card by constantly "correctin…

systemd (init) operates as pid1; Networkd is spawned by init similar to ubuntu's NetworkManager or a classic /etc/init.d/network restart.

Pid1 /must/ be the first process as it's starting all the others; Shipping a network daemon w/ systemd doesn't imply the network daemon is pid1.

Re: Systemd v218

#32

Post by the_why_of_y »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #17
sztanpet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are also conflating the "init.d" replacement with the project that is aiming to provide basic OS building blocks. networkd is quite orthogonal to pid1, what it is not orthogonal to is that nowadays almost every system needs network connectivity so bringing up the network is part of the basic system. And systemd (the project) is trying to be the basic building blocks from which you can build an OS out of.

basic OS building blocks Is a meaningless phrase. bringing up the network is part of the basic system I'm not even sure what the implication is here. That such a thing was not possible before systemd? And systemd (the project) is trying to be the basic building blocks from which you can build an OS out of. So it's trying to obsolete the Linux distribution? You're going to have to define some terminology first, I'm af…

>> basic OS building blocks

> Is a meaningless phrase.

What does "OS/Net consolidation" mean? Or "Base system"?

Re: Systemd v218

#34

Post by panzi »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #16
qznc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe systemd as a project should try a rebranding campaign. The init daemon is only one of its many tools now.

Yeah, they should call it "Linux for Workgroups".

That name is already taken: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...

Re: Systemd v218

#35

Post by mackwic »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #28
mackwic wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not at all. Emacs is significantly extensible. systemd has no notion of a plugin or module system, or anything like that rolling eyes Please, stop doing your karma bitch. 1. Systemd is far more than an init system, it has 69 binaries ! 2. sysV init has no notion of plugin nor module system, but has a notion of script file 3. Like systemd the init system: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html 4.…

I'm just going to assume you're not a troll, because your arguments are widespread, regardless. Systemd is far more than an init system, it has 69 binaries ! It's actually far more than 69 binaries by now. That's a long outdated number. Nor did I ever imply systemd is just an init system. Where did you get that? sysV init has no notion of plugin nor module system, but has a notion of script file Where did I mention s…

Well, your opinion is well informed. Please accept my apologies for answering so lightly. I was also thinking you were a troll.

So, very quick points before going into the core of the discussion:

> finit and initng are examples of plugin-based init systems.

There is a lot of innovative init systems out there, and none of them seems to have been considered. I agree, that's a shame but as I see it, systemd is only a transitional state where new architectures will be considered. I see systemd more like the recognition of the pain of shell scripts. The current situation is definitely too instable to stay as it.

> I'm also curious as to why you mention "recompile". The whole point of plugins is that you don't need to do that.

I strongly disagree. Dynamic libraries can be a point of failure of the system in so many ways I can't even imagine them all. We speak of a critical component of the system, it should be completely controlled.

Also, about the lack of Emacs-like plugin system, I would be frightened by this kind of extensibility as it would make the audit of a system far more complicated. I think we need some boundaries, the kind of a full interpreter wouldn't be able to give.

The question, then, is _what kind of extensibility is needed and acceptable_ ?

You seems to have an opinion on the matter, I would be happy to hear it.

From my point of view, the system proposed by systemd is acceptable and I don't miss any feature. Maybe I didn't dig to extreme corners, but be assured that I dig at least more than a simple install. It's not that bad.

Re: Systemd v218

#36

Post by Symmetry »

abofh wrote: post #31
digi_owl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can networkd operate without systemd sitting as pid0? Btw, that very line is why we have these debates. There is no clear way to indicate if you are talking about just the init part or the whole of systemd. This in large part because the name has stayed while the goals have constantly shifted. And sometimes i wonder if the proponents wants it this way, as they can play the "superior" card by constantly "correctin…

systemd (init) operates as pid1; Networkd is spawned by init similar to ubuntu's NetworkManager or a classic /etc/init.d/network restart. Pid1 /must/ be the first process as it's starting all the others; Shipping a network daemon w/ systemd doesn't imply the network daemon is pid1.

I think he's asking if you could launch networkd from, say, a traditional init or Upstart.

EDIT: Or if not, that's what I'm curious about.

Re: Systemd v218

#37

Post by eggnet »

drdaeman wrote: post #26
ealexhudson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's substantially south of 1000 lines of code. It's not a full PPP daemon, but it is enough to set up (it seems) PPPoE - useful, example, for small embedded DSL routers. I love that people bash Lennart for code he didn't even write...

I'm worried about "without an external pppd daemon" part. There's no point in PPPoE without PPP. And if they say "without external pppd" this means they're going to ship a full-fledged PPP daemon.

The linux kernel has had native PPPoE support since 2.4.

https://wiki.debian.org/PPPoE

Re: Systemd v218

#38

Post by Morgawr »

jmnicolas wrote: post #33

> Many many bug fixes Am I the only one to see this as a reason that it should not be in stable distribs like Debian or Redhat ?

All kind of software has bugs, even 30-years old stable software has bugs. The fact that developers are actively working on new releases, features and fixing existing problems shouldn't stop the software from being in stable distributions like Debian or Redhat.

Re: Systemd v218

#40

Post by xenophonf »

jmnicolas wrote: post #33

> Many many bug fixes Am I the only one to see this as a reason that it should not be in stable distribs like Debian or Redhat ?

Those bug fixes get back-ported, and the bugs fixed may have been introduced in versions of systemd released after whatever got included in RHEL/Debian. Speaking as someone constantly frustrated at the glacial pace at which RHEL and Debian-stable update themselves (which is admittedly a feature), it's nice to see them adopting somewhat modern stuff when they make major releases (if systemd v208+backports could be considered modern).
Post reply on HN