6 ms·

Why should an init.d replacement have something even remotely to do with PPPoE? What ever happened to orthogonal design?

teddyh 12y ago
There are legitimate reasons for moving the functionality of an external program into a library and using the library directly. Unfortunately, the reason for a PPoE library is not given. If I had to guess, it probably has something to do with running on an embedded platform. Or, possibly, the normal pppd binary requires too much of an operating system than systemd can provide at the point where networking needs to be set up. These are my guesses. Your guess seem to be that Lennart is unaware or unwilling to consider orthogonal design?
sztanpet 12y ago
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.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  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 afraid.
  - pantalaimon 12y ago
    > So it's trying to obsolete the Linux distribution? You say it like that would be a bad thing.
    - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
      systemd is targeting the totally wrong layer of the stack for such a thing. What makes a distribution is its package manager. We already have solutions like Nix for this, though they sadly might not break the mainstream if Lennart's proposed btrfs volume scheme comes into fruition. I'd say that experimentation and divergence in systems and application software, particularly if it's easily enabled thanks to the bazaar approach of Linux, is definitely a good thing. Trying to erect unshakable foundations around what is just an OS kernel will only stifle the marketplace of ideas. Of course, wanting a fully integrated OS is most certainly not a bad thing. This can be done either by using a BSD, or on the individual distribution level if it's sufficiently advanced.
      - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
        There's no reason third party components couldn't slot into systemd. It is quite modular. It is just a different method of intercommunication, not the end of intercommunicating modular components.
        digi_owl 12y ago
        Who do i hear Hotel California playing in my head?
      - digi_owl 12y ago
        Poettering has already laid out his vision for obsoleting package managers. Thinks Docker style containers, applied to the whole distro. Every lib or program put in its own BTRFS based container image, and via union mount magic (managed by systemd, natch) "always" (looking forward to the blog entries about its failures) given a proper run time environment.
        asveikau 12y ago
        Sounds like an idea that functions well in a niche and seems like complete nonsense in others. The great thing about the historical diversity in Linux is that, contrary to the complaints of "pointless" differences by folks in this thread, the various distros represent honest differences of opinion about what's good in a system. If you want to do silly things with loopback mounts and containers, there's room for that in the universe, but it would be wrong to impose it on those who don't want or need it.
  - the_why_of_y 12y ago
    >> basic OS building blocks > Is a meaningless phrase. What does "OS/Net consolidation" mean? Or "Base system"?
  - sztanpet 12y ago
    Trying to obsolete the needless differences between linux distributions on the basic level. The differences that everybody just re-implements all the time, but slightly differently and never decides to innovate or make the status-quo better.
  - asveikau 12y ago
    I think you hit it on the head to point out that the phrase is meaningless. The whole systemd phenomenon is very Freudian, right down to its name, it's as if systemd fans seek a single component to point at and call "the system", to worship as pater familias. "The system" will not only free you from being precise about what components serve what purpose, it will end all arguments and bring order to their lives in a way that decentralized purpose built components will not. Maybe they should just use OS X and be done with it.
  - EmanueleAina 12y ago
    "Basic OS building blocks" means that systemd aims to provide low-level tools that you can reliably depend on across distributions. In particular those pieces that are currently implemented through distribution-specific init scripts of various quality and robustness. Network configuration in particular varies greatly from distribution to distribution, having a common, shared system would be a great improvement over the status quo.
qznc 12y ago
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.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  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 "correcting" detractors on the difference. Fueling further the impression that the discussion is not technical but political...
  - abofh 12y ago
    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.
    - Symmetry 12y ago
      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.
      - digi_owl 12y ago
        Bingo. No other init but systemd has a sprawling set of sub-daemons that duplicate existing daemons for features (but not interfaces), and insist on only working with systemd as the running init.
        EmanueleAina 12y ago

teddyh 12y ago

There are legitimate reasons for moving the functionality of an external program into a library and using the library directly. Unfortunately, the reason for a PPoE library is not given. If I had to guess, it probably has something to do with running on an embedded platform. Or, possibly, the normal pppd binary requires too much of an operating system than systemd can provide at the point where networking needs to be set up. These are my guesses. Your guess seem to be that Lennart is unaware or unwilling to consider orthogonal design?

sztanpet 12y ago

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.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
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 afraid.
- pantalaimon 12y ago
  > So it's trying to obsolete the Linux distribution? You say it like that would be a bad thing.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    systemd is targeting the totally wrong layer of the stack for such a thing. What makes a distribution is its package manager. We already have solutions like Nix for this, though they sadly might not break the mainstream if Lennart's proposed btrfs volume scheme comes into fruition. I'd say that experimentation and divergence in systems and application software, particularly if it's easily enabled thanks to the bazaar approach of Linux, is definitely a good thing. Trying to erect unshakable foundations around what is just an OS kernel will only stifle the marketplace of ideas. Of course, wanting a fully integrated OS is most certainly not a bad thing. This can be done either by using a BSD, or on the individual distribution level if it's sufficiently advanced.
    - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
      There's no reason third party components couldn't slot into systemd. It is quite modular. It is just a different method of intercommunication, not the end of intercommunicating modular components.
      - digi_owl 12y ago
        Who do i hear Hotel California playing in my head?
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Poettering has already laid out his vision for obsoleting package managers. Thinks Docker style containers, applied to the whole distro. Every lib or program put in its own BTRFS based container image, and via union mount magic (managed by systemd, natch) "always" (looking forward to the blog entries about its failures) given a proper run time environment.
      - asveikau 12y ago
        Sounds like an idea that functions well in a niche and seems like complete nonsense in others. The great thing about the historical diversity in Linux is that, contrary to the complaints of "pointless" differences by folks in this thread, the various distros represent honest differences of opinion about what's good in a system. If you want to do silly things with loopback mounts and containers, there's room for that in the universe, but it would be wrong to impose it on those who don't want or need it.
- the_why_of_y 12y ago
  >> basic OS building blocks > Is a meaningless phrase. What does "OS/Net consolidation" mean? Or "Base system"?
- sztanpet 12y ago
  Trying to obsolete the needless differences between linux distributions on the basic level. The differences that everybody just re-implements all the time, but slightly differently and never decides to innovate or make the status-quo better.
- asveikau 12y ago
  I think you hit it on the head to point out that the phrase is meaningless. The whole systemd phenomenon is very Freudian, right down to its name, it's as if systemd fans seek a single component to point at and call "the system", to worship as pater familias. "The system" will not only free you from being precise about what components serve what purpose, it will end all arguments and bring order to their lives in a way that decentralized purpose built components will not. Maybe they should just use OS X and be done with it.
- EmanueleAina 12y ago
  "Basic OS building blocks" means that systemd aims to provide low-level tools that you can reliably depend on across distributions. In particular those pieces that are currently implemented through distribution-specific init scripts of various quality and robustness. Network configuration in particular varies greatly from distribution to distribution, having a common, shared system would be a great improvement over the status quo.

qznc 12y ago

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.

digi_owl 12y ago
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 "correcting" detractors on the difference. Fueling further the impression that the discussion is not technical but political...
- abofh 12y ago
  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.
  - Symmetry 12y ago
    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.
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Bingo. No other init but systemd has a sprawling set of sub-daemons that duplicate existing daemons for features (but not interfaces), and insist on only working with systemd as the running init.
      - EmanueleAina 12y ago