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.
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.
Network configuration in particular varies greatly from distribution to distribution, having a common, shared system would be a great improvement over the status quo.
You say it like that would be a bad thing.
Package management is already a sufficiently big differentiator that there's no need for separate network configuration systems.
Sounds made up.
> and this is the reason systemd has seen such widespread adoption.
It seems more like a few very influential players are in favor and the smaller people must follow suit if they want to be compatible. The latter part doesn't seem nearly as voluntary as you suggest.
Also I don't know who you're referring to with "influential players" vs. "smaller people". How such "influential players" are forcing "smaller people" to do things they don't want? Care to elaborate?
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.
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.
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.
Maybe they should just use OS X and be done with it.
> Is a meaningless phrase.
What does "OS/Net consolidation" mean? Or "Base system"?
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.
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...
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.
EDIT: Or if not, that's what I'm curious about.
Since systemd needed a way to understand networking enough to activate units only on certain network settings (no need to fire up avahi if no real network interfaces are available) factoring out a daemon to react to devices coming and going to configure them wasn't too much work.
You may thing that networkd duplicates some NetworkManager features, but it's a rather different, lower-level beast and they can work together just fine.
I'm not sure which other daemons systemd duplicates, care to elaborate?
timesyncd does not duplicate ntpd, it is just a client daemon (it's closer to a daemonised ntpdate), hostnamed, localed, machined do not duplicate anything, logind is the ConsoleKit successor addressing the known, unfixable issues in the latter.
timesyncd, hostnamed, localed may arguably be made to work on non-systemd systems with little effort (as they already do in the systemd-shims package), logind relies on the systemd-as-pid1 due to the need to set up cgroups (in preparation to the single hierarchy change planned by kernel people) but with some more work it can be made to work without systemd (see the systemd-shims package again). I'm not sure if networkd is shipped by systemd-shims, let me know if you care enough to check.
These are my guesses. Your guess seem to be that Lennart is unaware or unwilling to consider orthogonal design?