Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88

Thread: Systemd's Network Support Frustrating Some Users

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,113

    Default Systemd's Network Support Frustrating Some Users

    Phoronix: Systemd's Network Support Frustrating Some Users

    The latest controversy within the systemd camp is the new networkd support that appeared in this week's systemd 209 release. It seems the new systemd-networkd is forced upon users by default and not everyone likes this approach...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYxMTI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Viva OpenRC!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    I'm all for it if systemd can consolidate all the network functionality. For example on some OSes having the network be managed by one system for desktops and another for servers is ridiculous.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200

    Default

    I thought networkd was only meant for embedded systems and servers with static network configuration.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Even as a fan of systemd I think this is the wrong approach. It should just be another service you can enable if you want it. Most people will probably be using NetworkManager anyway.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shaurz View Post
    Even as a fan of systemd I think this is the wrong approach. It should just be another service you can enable if you want it. Most people will probably be using NetworkManager anyway.
    Yeah that for sure. My qualcomm wifi card crashes with networkmanager(some times takes whole pc with it). While with wicd it work like a charm.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,911

    Default

    I think there's one important facet that people are ignoring here... Systemd releases in kind of a vacuum; it doesn't know what your setup is, but its a fairly safe assumption that you will need networking for SOMETHING.

    So it enables by default, so what? The only people affected by it will be Distros pre-release and people who compile from source (who most of them are in the first group as maintainers / packagers). Everyone else will encounter systemd 209+ in the form of an update from their distro, who will probably be shipping NetworkManager, and therefore should have systemd-networkd disabled as part of the package update since they already have NetworkManager installed by default in their distros.


    Caveat: I'm making the assumption here that Fedora did NOT ship systemd 209 as an update already. If they shipped it, with networkd enabled by default, despite the fact they already have NetworkManager installed by default on ALL their spins then I'm calling human error on the packager and he needs a smackin upside the head.

  8. #8

    Default

    Zawinski's law of software envelopment:
    Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    48

    Default This is pretty missleading

    Hi Michael,

    This article is pretty misleading in a few ways. If you drop me an email next time I'd be happy to help you out to make sure you at least get the facts straight (I assume there is no way to dissuade you from including the hyperbole, so I won't even try).

    Firstly, I don't really understand what is causing this "frustration" you are writing about. It would be helpful if you would include some details about what problems people have faced, as they apparently have been telling you about it rather than filing bugs. Is it only about seeing a process running, or is there some real measurable ill effects that I need to look into?

    There have always been several simple ways to disable networkd. It can be disabled with a compile-time switch. It can be masked with "systemctl mask systemd-networkd" (which is certainly no harder than 'systemctl disable systemd-networkd'). As mentioned before, even when running, it will not do anything unless configured to. At the request of some gentoo developers, we have now made sure that the service can also be disabled in the regular way. There are good reasons why we recommend having networkd running, even if your main network interfaces are configured by something else. A few examples of why this is cool should hopefully appear in the next few days.

    You mention two commits, and make it sound like an 'edit-war' is going on. Please not that I was the one who committed both of them (which explains why they were so close to each other in time), so there was nothing controversial going on there.

    These commits implement the policy we usually stick to: systemd from upstream will by default behave the way we recommend, but we will not stand in the way of people or distributions doing things differently. Distros can very easily (one line in a .spec/.ebuild file) ship systemd with networkd installed but disabled by default, and even if they don't admins can very easily (one command) disable it.

    Hopefully that will make everyone happy

    Cheers,

    Tom

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    342

    Default

    What precisely is networkd? Will it (yet again) replace netctl on Arch Linux? Seems like a waste when netctl seems to be designed to fit well with systemd in the first place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •