5 ms·

Nah, more like why do systemd include anything to do with DNS at all. The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods as devs gets bored and think they can reimplement

Nah, more like why do systemd include anything to do with DNS at all. The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods as devs gets bored and think they can reimplement a time tested daemon in a weekend.

pawadu 9y ago
Good to know I am not the only one thinking this way...
jameskegel 9y ago
>The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods You're spot on.
Asooka 9y ago
We should just start submitting patches that more or less copy-paste the code of the current best solution to the problem over the systemd implementation.
- setq 9y ago
  There's a good implementation of systemd here: https://github.com/bluerise/openbsd/tree/master/sbin/init https://github.com/bluerise/openbsd/tree/master/sbin/init
qb45 9y ago
How else would you get DNS responses in XML over DBus? ;)
- deno 9y ago
  DBus only uses XML for its introspection interface. There’s really no reason why you couldn’t switch it to anything else like tomorrow. Specifically, DBus does not use XML for any message passing or data serialization. It uses its custom binary on-wire format. Also to consume or provide DBus services you do not need to interact with any XML whatsoever (except maybe for Polkit but that’s not DBus).
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > There’s really no reason why you couldn’t switch it to anything else like tomorrow. Except backwards compatibility? Something that any user of a supposedly-universal IPC bus requires out of the gate? > It uses its custom binary on-wire format. Even better, as we all know that custom binary on-wire formats have been proven to be more secure than any other option. Especially when written in C and exposed to a processes of all privilege levels.
    - deno 9y ago
      > Except backwards compatibility? Something that any user of a supposedly-universal IPC bus requires out of the gate? You can put DBus server behind a proxy that handles that for you. The XML format is very simple and it doesn’t change. My point was simply that XML use is very limited, not exposed by any high-level APIs and can be easily ignored. XML is only used for introspection, a debug protocol on top of DBus. > Even better, as we all know that custom binary on-wire formats have been proven to be more secure than any other option. Especially when written in C and exposed to a processes of all privilege levels. DBus is a message-passing protocol. You can write it in anything you like. You could have DBus server that talks Protocol Buffers or JSON if you like, as long as you provide gateway for legacy clients.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        > My point was simply that XML use is very limited, not exposed by any high-level APIs and can be easily ignored. Saying "you can change it to whatever you want" is not a helpful thing to say. I understand your point (it's not "baked in" or wahtever) but you're not helping your cause by stating that "oh, we could just change this part of the protocol whenever we want and it would all just work". Because it gives an aura of instability and "we can move fast and break things" in my eyes (even though DBus has been around for a long time). > DBus is a message-passing protocol. You can write it in anything you like. The message passing daemon is written in C, and kdbus is a plan to put it inside the kernel (written in C). Just because "you can write it in whatever language you want" doesn't change that it is currently written in C, and I doubt that anyone is going to rewrite it in Rust any time soon. Again, I understand that DBus is a protocol and an implementation and you can swap out the implementation if you want. But how many implementations currently exist? One. So currently the dangers of having custom binary formats in C is a valid concern even if you might be able to switch to some other implementation in the distant future.
sangnoir 9y ago
> The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods as devs gets bored and think they can reimplement a time tested daemon in a weekend. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Raleigh[1] wgah'nagl fhtagn" ("In his house at Raleigh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.") 1. I'm so sorry, but I couldn't keep myself from punning Red-Hat-sponsored systemd with the Cthulu mythos. For the non-Lovecraft fans, the original city is named "R'lyeh"
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Lovely. I actually confuse the two from time to time.
floatboth 9y ago
Exactly — rewriting a time tested daemon written in an unsafe language to an untested daemon in the same unsafe language. The worst possible option.

Nah, more like why do systemd include anything to do with DNS at all. The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods as devs gets bored and think they can reimplement a time tested daemon in a weekend.

pawadu 9y ago

Good to know I am not the only one thinking this way...

jameskegel 9y ago

>The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods You're spot on.

Asooka 9y ago

We should just start submitting patches that more or less copy-paste the code of the current best solution to the problem over the systemd implementation.

setq 9y ago
There's a good implementation of systemd here: https://github.com/bluerise/openbsd/tree/master/sbin/init https://github.com/bluerise/openbsd/tree/master/sbin/init

qb45 9y ago

How else would you get DNS responses in XML over DBus? ;)

deno 9y ago
DBus only uses XML for its introspection interface. There’s really no reason why you couldn’t switch it to anything else like tomorrow. Specifically, DBus does not use XML for any message passing or data serialization. It uses its custom binary on-wire format. Also to consume or provide DBus services you do not need to interact with any XML whatsoever (except maybe for Polkit but that’s not DBus).
- cyphar 9y ago
  > There’s really no reason why you couldn’t switch it to anything else like tomorrow. Except backwards compatibility? Something that any user of a supposedly-universal IPC bus requires out of the gate? > It uses its custom binary on-wire format. Even better, as we all know that custom binary on-wire formats have been proven to be more secure than any other option. Especially when written in C and exposed to a processes of all privilege levels.
  - deno 9y ago
    > Except backwards compatibility? Something that any user of a supposedly-universal IPC bus requires out of the gate? You can put DBus server behind a proxy that handles that for you. The XML format is very simple and it doesn’t change. My point was simply that XML use is very limited, not exposed by any high-level APIs and can be easily ignored. XML is only used for introspection, a debug protocol on top of DBus. > Even better, as we all know that custom binary on-wire formats have been proven to be more secure than any other option. Especially when written in C and exposed to a processes of all privilege levels. DBus is a message-passing protocol. You can write it in anything you like. You could have DBus server that talks Protocol Buffers or JSON if you like, as long as you provide gateway for legacy clients.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      > My point was simply that XML use is very limited, not exposed by any high-level APIs and can be easily ignored. Saying "you can change it to whatever you want" is not a helpful thing to say. I understand your point (it's not "baked in" or wahtever) but you're not helping your cause by stating that "oh, we could just change this part of the protocol whenever we want and it would all just work". Because it gives an aura of instability and "we can move fast and break things" in my eyes (even though DBus has been around for a long time). > DBus is a message-passing protocol. You can write it in anything you like. The message passing daemon is written in C, and kdbus is a plan to put it inside the kernel (written in C). Just because "you can write it in whatever language you want" doesn't change that it is currently written in C, and I doubt that anyone is going to rewrite it in Rust any time soon. Again, I understand that DBus is a protocol and an implementation and you can swap out the implementation if you want. But how many implementations currently exist? One. So currently the dangers of having custom binary formats in C is a valid concern even if you might be able to switch to some other implementation in the distant future.

sangnoir 9y ago

> The shoggoth keep sprouting pseudopods as devs gets bored and think they can reimplement a time tested daemon in a weekend. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Raleigh[1] wgah'nagl fhtagn" ("In his house at Raleigh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.") 1. I'm so sorry, but I couldn't keep myself from punning Red-Hat-sponsored systemd with the Cthulu mythos. For the non-Lovecraft fans, the original city is named "R'lyeh"

digi_owl 9y ago
Lovely. I actually confuse the two from time to time.

floatboth 9y ago

Exactly — rewriting a time tested daemon written in an unsafe language to an untested daemon in the same unsafe language. The worst possible option.