And it's substantially south of 1000 lines of code. It's not a full PPP daemon, but it is enough to set up (it seems) PPPoE - useful, example, for small embedded DSL routers.

I love that people bash Lennart for code he didn't even write...

I'm worried about "without an external pppd daemon" part.

There's no point in PPPoE without PPP. And if they say "without external pppd" this means they're going to ship a full-fledged PPP daemon.

The linux kernel has had native PPPoE support since 2.4.

https://wiki.debian.org/PPPoE

Yes, that's the difference with rp-pppoe.so (using kernel module to handle encapsulation, userspace code only sets up the sockets) and pppd's pty option (got it a bit wrong in my other comment in this thread, believed it's a pipe, thanks for correcting) with separate process to do so. It doesn't really matter.

More than this, Linux kernel has kernel-mode PPP. But still a few parts of PPP, and all accompanying control protocols (especially authentication-related ones like EAP - you don't want that beast in the kernel!) are done in userspace.

While he didn't write it, he did choose to include it. Still, as someone on the fence, I'd really rather just hear about the software itself.

I'm worried about "without an external pppd daemon" part.

Maybe systemd as a project should try a rebranding campaign. The init daemon is only one of its many tools now.

This still smells funny. The fact that the whole project is handle as one may make the communication between developers and also program component too easy (coupling). Personally I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the 'special strings', flags and options added at each release.

Yeah, they should call it "Linux for Workgroups".

That name is already taken: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...

Would not be the first time systemd has overloaded something kernel related...

I have come to suspect that the systemd devs are fueling that confusion, so that debates can disintegrate into a mess of arguments over semantics.