8 ms·

Systemd v218

44 points by lelf 12y ago

andor 12y ago
This is cool: * systemctl gained a new "edit" command. When used on a unit file this allows extending unit files with .d/ drop-in configuration snippets or editing the full file (after copying it from /usr/lib to /etc). This will invoke the user's editor (as configured with $EDITOR), and reload the modified configuration after editing.
mahouse 12y ago
Lennart, I'm still waiting for you to embed WebKit and an email client on systemd.
pianoforted 12y ago
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?
- 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
davecheney 12y ago
When will this madness stop? Will systemd not be satisfied til it has subsumed the universe into one great pid 1 singularity?
- bojo 12y ago
  systemd - the emacs of init systems.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    Not at all. Emacs is significantly extensible. systemd has no notion of a plugin or module system, or anything like that. Other init schemes do, though.
    - hwh 12y ago
      Systemd has a DBus API. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/
      - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
        Which is a programmatic way of essentially doing what systemctl does, querying Unit metadata, and subscribing to some events. I have no idea how the hell this implies modules, plugins or extensibility on any level that even begins to scratch the surface of Emacs.
        Shish2k 12y ago
        To be fair, the entire open source ecosystem combined minus emacs doesn't scratch the extensibility of emacs...
    - mackwic 12y ago
      > 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 http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html 4. But you can also plug yourself via the dbus api, which is far more powerful: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/ 5. If that's what you are suggesting to do, you are not supposed to directly modify and recompile your init system for causal changes. If you want to change its behavior, use command line flags or configuration file.
drdaeman 12y ago
I don't get it (and don't want to download and read systemd source). Could someone explain? The docs say: > native PPPoE library has been added to sd-network, systemd's library of light-weight networking protocols. This library will be used in a future version of networkd to enable PPPoE communication without an external pppd daemon. (emphasis mine) Usually, it works like this - a separate entity (either as a separate daemon that talks to pppd through a pipe or as rp-pppoe.so plugin to Samba's pppd) does the PPPoE session discovery and management, then passes decapsulated PPP frames to a full-fledged PPP daemon implementation. Which is a quite large entity. Did they implement only PPPoE part (that is, just handling encapsulated PPP frames) or systemd now has a full-fledged PPP (with all the important subprotocols like LCP, EAP, IPCP and possibly IP6CP) reimplementation? Not like I care about systemd gaining PPP support. Heck, they want to build their own OS core - that's great. What I don't get is why rewrite things that aren't broken in the first place? (Samba's pppd may be a bit messy and has some nearly-dead stuff like IPX support, but is generally fine.)
- systemdturd 12y ago
  What's not to get? Your shiny new bloated init system just added another attack entry point. Enjoy! The hackers will! Edit - so people think this will be secure and not exhibit some of the same classy bugs the other 68 binaries of systemd have shown? A flick through the bug tracker over there is a real eye opener.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Likely the existing pppd don't play well with systemd's automagical detection of network status, and the unit files that depend on that.
  - drdaeman 12y ago
    Why not just spawn pppd from networkd? They can write a full-fledged pppd replacement, but can't just have pppd as a child process and happily control it? (May possibly need a tiny patch or two, but that's barely an issue) I'd get it if one needs some very tight integration, but pppd is self-sufficient, fairly controllable and well-tested. Looks like NIH syndrome to me. But maybe I'm missing something from the picture and pppd isn't a good fit. Then, okay.
jmnicolas 12y ago
> 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 ?
- Morgawr 12y ago
  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.
- xenophonf 12y ago
  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).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
RexRollman 12y ago
What a monstrosity.

44 points by lelf 12y ago

andor 12y ago

This is cool: * systemctl gained a new "edit" command. When used on a unit file this allows extending unit files with .d/ drop-in configuration snippets or editing the full file (after copying it from /usr/lib to /etc). This will invoke the user's editor (as configured with $EDITOR), and reload the modified configuration after editing.

mahouse 12y ago

Lennart, I'm still waiting for you to embed WebKit and an email client on systemd.

pianoforted 12y ago

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?
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

davecheney 12y ago

When will this madness stop? Will systemd not be satisfied til it has subsumed the universe into one great pid 1 singularity?

bojo 12y ago
systemd - the emacs of init systems.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Not at all. Emacs is significantly extensible. systemd has no notion of a plugin or module system, or anything like that. Other init schemes do, though.
  - hwh 12y ago
    Systemd has a DBus API. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/
    - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
      Which is a programmatic way of essentially doing what systemctl does, querying Unit metadata, and subscribing to some events. I have no idea how the hell this implies modules, plugins or extensibility on any level that even begins to scratch the surface of Emacs.
      - Shish2k 12y ago
        To be fair, the entire open source ecosystem combined minus emacs doesn't scratch the extensibility of emacs...
  - mackwic 12y ago
    > 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 http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html 4. But you can also plug yourself via the dbus api, which is far more powerful: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/dbus/ 5. If that's what you are suggesting to do, you are not supposed to directly modify and recompile your init system for causal changes. If you want to change its behavior, use command line flags or configuration file.

drdaeman 12y ago

I don't get it (and don't want to download and read systemd source). Could someone explain? The docs say: > native PPPoE library has been added to sd-network, systemd's library of light-weight networking protocols. This library will be used in a future version of networkd to enable PPPoE communication without an external pppd daemon. (emphasis mine) Usually, it works like this - a separate entity (either as a separate daemon that talks to pppd through a pipe or as rp-pppoe.so plugin to Samba's pppd) does the PPPoE session discovery and management, then passes decapsulated PPP frames to a full-fledged PPP daemon implementation. Which is a quite large entity. Did they implement only PPPoE part (that is, just handling encapsulated PPP frames) or systemd now has a full-fledged PPP (with all the important subprotocols like LCP, EAP, IPCP and possibly IP6CP) reimplementation? Not like I care about systemd gaining PPP support. Heck, they want to build their own OS core - that's great. What I don't get is why rewrite things that aren't broken in the first place? (Samba's pppd may be a bit messy and has some nearly-dead stuff like IPX support, but is generally fine.)

systemdturd 12y ago
What's not to get? Your shiny new bloated init system just added another attack entry point. Enjoy! The hackers will! Edit - so people think this will be secure and not exhibit some of the same classy bugs the other 68 binaries of systemd have shown? A flick through the bug tracker over there is a real eye opener.
digi_owl 12y ago
Likely the existing pppd don't play well with systemd's automagical detection of network status, and the unit files that depend on that.
- drdaeman 12y ago
  Why not just spawn pppd from networkd? They can write a full-fledged pppd replacement, but can't just have pppd as a child process and happily control it? (May possibly need a tiny patch or two, but that's barely an issue) I'd get it if one needs some very tight integration, but pppd is self-sufficient, fairly controllable and well-tested. Looks like NIH syndrome to me. But maybe I'm missing something from the picture and pppd isn't a good fit. Then, okay.

jmnicolas 12y ago

> 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 ?

Morgawr 12y ago
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.
xenophonf 12y ago
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).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

RexRollman 12y ago

What a monstrosity.