[gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[walt]

I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
longer true.  Today I had to enable dhcpcd.service specifically or the
network interface didn't get an ip address during boot.

Seems like this might be especially important for those of you who need
to update remote machines.  

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 764 bytes --]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700, walt wrote:

> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
> the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
> longer true.  Today I had to enable dhcpcd.service specifically or the
> network interface didn't get an ip address during boot.

What are you using for network management? I've just found I had to
enable systemd-networkd.service to get the network up. Of course, this
happens just when I made some changes to my network setup, so I started
undoing those changes before realising systemd had changed behaviour.
Maybe I should start reading Changelogs...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."
  - Mark Twain

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[walt]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700
walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
> the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
> longer true. 

Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting
repeatedly during boot.  I'm reverting back to systemd-222-r1 until
this gets sorted out.

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:03 AM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
> the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
> longer true.  Today I had to enable dhcpcd.service specifically or the
> network interface didn't get an ip address during boot.
>
> Seems like this might be especially important for those of you who need
> to update remote machines.

If you enable systemd-networkd.service, and your .network file has DHCP=yes
in its [Network] section, then it will use the DHCP client included with
systemd-networkd.

In my servers I not longer use any net-misc/*dhcp* package.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 969 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Martin Vaeth]

walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting
> repeatedly during boot.

systemd has become very picky on cflags; e.g. -DNDEBUG
and friends cause strange behaviour and segfaults.

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[gottlieb]

On Sun, Aug 02 2015, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:03 AM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
>> the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
>> longer true.  Today I had to enable dhcpcd.service specifically or the
>> network interface didn't get an ip address during boot.
>>
>> Seems like this might be especially important for those of you who need
>> to update remote machines.
>
> If you enable systemd-networkd.service, and your .network file has DHCP=yes
> in its [Network] section, then it will use the DHCP client included with
> systemd-networkd.
>
> In my servers I not longer use any net-misc/*dhcp* package.
>
> Regards.

Is this server-related?  I have only simple workstations/laptops and I
don't enable systemd-networkd at all.  It seems that NetworkManager
takes care of both wired and wireless without assistance (including
dhcp).

thanks,
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1893 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:30 AM, <gottlieb@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 02 2015, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:03 AM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
> >> the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
> >> longer true.  Today I had to enable dhcpcd.service specifically or the
> >> network interface didn't get an ip address during boot.
> >>
> >> Seems like this might be especially important for those of you who need
> >> to update remote machines.
> >
> > If you enable systemd-networkd.service, and your .network file has
DHCP=yes
> > in its [Network] section, then it will use the DHCP client included with
> > systemd-networkd.
> >
> > In my servers I not longer use any net-misc/*dhcp* package.
> >
> > Regards.
>
> Is this server-related?  I have only simple workstations/laptops and I
> don't enable systemd-networkd at all.  It seems that NetworkManager
> takes care of both wired and wireless without assistance (including
> dhcp).

In latptops/workstations NetworkManager takes care of everything. However,
I still enable systemd-networkd and systemd-resolved in my laptop and
workstations. If enabled without any configuration, it just monitors the
network interfaces and keeps them "in the loop" for the rest of the system
to know about them from a central registry. It doesn't interfere with
NetworkManager (or any other network management program for that matter).

It's not mandatory to enable them either. However, there were advantages to
doing so; for example, in my laptop, systemd-timesyncd would try to sync
the clock only if there was a network connection available.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2266 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700
> walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
>> the dhcpcd service at boot time.  Starting with systemd-224 that is no
>> longer true.
>
> Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting
> repeatedly during boot.  I'm reverting back to systemd-222-r1 until
> this gets sorted out.

Fixed in systemd-224-r1. Next time file a bug; I don't always read this list.

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1047 bytes --]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:50:24 -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> > Is this server-related?  I have only simple workstations/laptops and I
> > don't enable systemd-networkd at all.  It seems that NetworkManager
> > takes care of both wired and wireless without assistance (including
> > dhcp).  
> 
> In latptops/workstations NetworkManager takes care of everything.
> However, I still enable systemd-networkd and systemd-resolved in my
> laptop and workstations. If enabled without any configuration, it just
> monitors the network interfaces and keeps them "in the loop" for the
> rest of the system to know about them from a central registry. It
> doesn't interfere with NetworkManager (or any other network management
> program for that matter).

Alternatively, you can use systemd-networkd and do without
NetworkManager altogether, avoiding a load of dependencies if you don't
use GNOME.

For typical wireless networks, wpa_gui is more than adequate for
configuration.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Bugs are Sons of Glitches

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[gottlieb]

On Mon, Aug 03 2015, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> In latptops/workstations NetworkManager takes care of
> everything. However, I still enable systemd-networkd and
> systemd-resolved in my laptop and workstations. If enabled without any
> configuration, it just monitors the network interfaces and keeps them
> "in the loop" for the rest of the system to know about them from a
> central registry. It doesn't interfere with NetworkManager (or any
> other network management program for that matter).
>
> It's not mandatory to enable them either. However, there were
> advantages to doing so; for example, in my laptop, systemd-timesyncd
> would try to sync the clock only if there was a network connection
> available.

Thank you for the clarification.  I will follow your lead.
allan

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[walt]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:23:18 -0400
Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700
> > walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Oops, journalctl tells me that systemd-networkd is segfaulting
> > repeatedly during boot.  I'm reverting back to systemd-222-r1 until
> > this gets sorted out.
> 
> Fixed in systemd-224-r1. Next time file a bug; I don't always read
> this list.

Thanks Mike.  The fix is amazingly simple but looking at the patch
makes me realize how little I understand the c language after years
of reading c code but not writing any :/

const char *hostname = NULL;  (upstream apparently forgot the = NULL)

That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below
proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'.  I wonder how many hours
of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to
understand the logic behind that.

<coughing from the dust on my 40-year-old Kernighan and Ritchie> I see
that they didn't include the 'const' keyword at all.  That was a later
change introduced by some ANSI committee, bless them.

<sigh> I truly don't understand how any working code get written.

Anyway, thanks again for the fix :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below
> proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'.  I wonder how many hours
> of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to
> understand the logic behind that.

Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :)

const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */
char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */
const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */

Is that confusing enough?

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Franz Fellner]

Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below
> > proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'.  I wonder how many hours
> > of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to
> > understand the logic behind that.
> 
> Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :)
Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways:
hostname is of type "pointer to const char".
*hostname is of type "const char".

But in this case it is not "*hostname", that get's a value assigned, it's simply "hostname". If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set to - quite undefined.
Correct initialization is really important and should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid issues like this)

> 
> const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */
> char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */
> const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */
> 
> Is that confusing enough?
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Rodriguez
> 

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[walt]

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200
Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement
> > > below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'.  I wonder how
> > > many hours of frustration have been suffered by student
> > > programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that.
> > 
> > Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :)
> Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways:
> hostname is of type "pointer to const char".
> *hostname is of type "const char".
> 
> But in this case it is not "*hostname", that get's a value assigned,
> it's simply "hostname". If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays
> uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set
> to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and
> should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid
> issues like this)
> 
> > 
> > const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */
> > char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */
> > const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */
> > 
> > Is that confusing enough?

confusing++

Thank you both for being patient enough to teach the ineducable :)

Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable,
and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have
opinions.

Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation:

 if (!link->network->hostname)      <this notation makes sense to me>
 r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, &hostname);     <this doesn't>

In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
charstring we actually need?

Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?

<okay, screed over, thanks for listening>

Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever
written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste
from the first one.

Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming?

I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I
feel it's an important topic.

Thanks guys.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:56 PM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable,
> and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have
> opinions.
>
> Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation:
>
>  if (!link->network->hostname)      <this notation makes sense to me>
>  r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, &hostname);     <this doesn't>
>
> In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
> charstring we actually need?
>
> Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?

Nope, looks like standard C to me. If you want a function to update an
argument, you need to pass a pointer to said argument. If you want to
update a pointer, you need to pass a pointer to a pointer.

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Franz Fellner]

walt wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200
> Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > > > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement
> > > > below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'.  I wonder how
> > > > many hours of frustration have been suffered by student
> > > > programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that.
> > > 
> > > Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :)
> > Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways:
> > hostname is of type "pointer to const char".
> > *hostname is of type "const char".
> > 
> > But in this case it is not "*hostname", that get's a value assigned,
> > it's simply "hostname". If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays
> > uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set
> > to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and
> > should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid
> > issues like this)
> > 
> > > 
> > > const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */
> > > char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */
> > > const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */
> > > 
> > > Is that confusing enough?
> 
> confusing++
> 
> Thank you both for being patient enough to teach the ineducable :)
> 
> Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable,
> and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have
> opinions.
> 
> Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation:
> 
>  if (!link->network->hostname)      <this notation makes sense to me>
>  r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, &hostname);     <this doesn't>

The "&"-operator returns the address of the object, in this case of hostname.
If you would just pass "hostname" the function would receive a _copy_ of the object.
hostname is an "out-argument", the function writes to it. That is needed sometimes
as C only can return one value, if you need to return more things you need to pass
them as out-args. But for that to work you need to operate on the actual object and
not a copy of it, so you need to pass the address to the actual object.
The declaration of the function of course needs to specify the arg as "pointer to"
the actual type, here "pointer to a pointer to char".

> 
> In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
> charstring we actually need?
> 
> Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?
> 
> <okay, screed over, thanks for listening>
> 
> Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever
> written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste
> from the first one.
> 
> Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming?
> 
> I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I
> feel it's an important topic.
> 
> Thanks guys.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 6:18:07 AM Franz Fellner wrote:
> walt wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200
> > Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > > > > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement
> > > > > below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'.  I wonder how
> > > > > many hours of frustration have been suffered by student
> > > > > programmers while trying to understand the logic behind that.
> > > > 
> > > > Because it's not a constant, it's a pointer-to-constant :)
> > > Both of you are right, you can read the declaration in both ways:
> > > hostname is of type "pointer to const char".
> > > *hostname is of type "const char".
> > > 
> > > But in this case it is not "*hostname", that get's a value assigned,
> > > it's simply "hostname". If you do not set hostname to NULL it stays
> > > uninitialised, which means its value is what the actual memory is set
> > > to - quite undefined. Correct initialization is really important and
> > > should be done consequently so it gets an automatism ;) (would avoid
> > > issues like this)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > const char *hostname; /* pointer to constant char */
> > > > char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to char */
> > > > const char *const hostname; /* constant pointer to constant char */
> > > > 
> > > > Is that confusing enough?
> > 
> > confusing++
> > 
> > Thank you both for being patient enough to teach the ineducable :)
> > 
> > Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable,
> > and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have
> > opinions.
> > 
> > Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation:
> > 
> >  if (!link->network->hostname)      <this notation makes sense to me>
> >  r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, &hostname);     <this doesn't>
> 
> The "&"-operator returns the address of the object, in this case of 
hostname.
> If you would just pass "hostname" the function would receive a _copy_ of the 
object.
> hostname is an "out-argument", the function writes to it. That is needed 
sometimes
> as C only can return one value, if you need to return more things you need 
to pass
> them as out-args. But for that to work you need to operate on the actual 
object and
> not a copy of it, so you need to pass the address to the actual object.
> The declaration of the function of course needs to specify the arg as 
"pointer to"
> the actual type, here "pointer to a pointer to char".

You can look at it like that, but more technically it's because C doesn't 
support out arguments, or reference arguments, or objects. All arguments are 
passed by value. You can return multiple values in a struct but it's not very 
convenient both in terms of usability (you need to store the result in a 
variable before you can use it unless you only care about one member) and 
performance since everything needs to be copied. Plus the implementation may 
vary significantly between compilers and architectures

So in order to get a value back from the function (other than the return) you 
pass the address (a pointer) where you want that data to be written. Things 
like that make C seem primitive if your coming from a higher level language 
but it is what makes C so powerful. Once you get the hang of it and understand 
how everything works it's actually simpler than higher level languages because 
C doesn't do stuff behind you back (or does very little) so you can read C code 
a understand what's going on under the hood. Most Java and .NET developers for 
example have no clue about what goes on in their own programs under the hood.

> > 
> > In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
> > charstring we actually need?
> > 
> > Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?
> > 
> > <okay, screed over, thanks for listening>
> > 
> > Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever
> > written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste
> > from the first one.
> > 
> > Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming?

That's how you write bugs :) There's nothing wrong with it if you take the 
take to understand what it's doing but it's too often done blindly.

> > I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I
> > feel it's an important topic.
> > 
> > Thanks guys.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Alan McKinnon]

On 05/08/2015 10:18, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> You can look at it like that, but more technically it's because C doesn't 
> support out arguments, or reference arguments, or objects. All arguments are 
> passed by value. You can return multiple values in a struct but it's not very 
> convenient both in terms of usability (you need to store the result in a 
> variable before you can use it unless you only care about one member) and 
> performance since everything needs to be copied. Plus the implementation may 
> vary significantly between compilers and architectures
> 
> So in order to get a value back from the function (other than the return) you 
> pass the address (a pointer) where you want that data to be written. Things 
> like that make C seem primitive if your coming from a higher level language 
> but it is what makes C so powerful. Once you get the hang of it and understand 
> how everything works it's actually simpler than higher level languages because 
> C doesn't do stuff behind you back (or does very little) so you can read C code 
> a understand what's going on under the hood. Most Java and .NET developers for 
> example have no clue about what goes on in their own programs under the hood.

Thanks for the reminder. I'd forgotten much about C (not needing to read
or write it much these days)
> 
>>> > > 
>>> > > In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
>>> > > charstring we actually need?
>>> > > 
>>> > > Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?
>>> > > 
>>> > > <okay, screed over, thanks for listening>
>>> > > 
>>> > > Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever
>>> > > written, and every subsequent java program was written by cut-and-paste
>>> > > from the first one.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming?

Looking back 12 months to some former colleagues, that is *exactly* how
the Java ecosystem works. I haven't seen anyone write Java from scratch
in *years* now, all of them seem to twiddle little bits inside some huge
framework and have zero concept about what is going on.

So you get anomolies like a giant payroll/compensation/commission
reporting tool thingamagic from Oracle that does everything imaginable
about sales commissions, except actually report on them. True fax - ask
my wife


> That's how you write bugs :) There's nothing wrong with it if you take the 
> take to understand what it's doing but it's too often done blindly.
> 
>>> > > I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I
>>> > > feel it's an important topic.

Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:

The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
The bad thing about php is that they do.

I suppose there's a place for that kind of thing, a lot of corporate
systems are mostly boilerplate where a huge framework (and equally huge
expensive over-specced hardware) gets the job done. The thing that
really changes is the exact calculations in the business-logic
middleware layer, someone else did the heavy lifting of joining all the
modules together to resemble the real-world workflow.

It's not my way of working though, and I suspect most Gentooers tend the
same way if they get the chance.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
> 
> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
> The bad thing about php is that they do.

Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for a 
minute that you used some php parser ...  :p

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Alan McKinnon]

On 05/08/2015 19:20, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
>> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
>> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
>>
>> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
>> The bad thing about php is that they do.
> 
> Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for a 
> minute that you used some php parser ...  :p
> 


That's what happens when you make a typo after a thinko....


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[J. Roeleveld]

On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:47:58 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 10:18, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> >>> > > In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
> >>> > > charstring we actually need?
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > <okay, screed over, thanks for listening>
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Somewhere I read that there was really only *one* java program ever
> >>> > > written, and every subsequent java program was written by
> >>> > > cut-and-paste
> >>> > > from the first one.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Is that how professional developers learn the art of programming?
> 
> Looking back 12 months to some former colleagues, that is *exactly* how
> the Java ecosystem works. I haven't seen anyone write Java from scratch
> in *years* now, all of them seem to twiddle little bits inside some huge
> framework and have zero concept about what is going on.

Only 12 months?
Most IDEs and/or frameworks basically set up everything and just add bits like 
"// Write your code here"
Problems start when these ama...eerh... programmers put there code in other 
locations...

> So you get anomolies like a giant payroll/compensation/commission
> reporting tool thingamagic from Oracle that does everything imaginable
> about sales commissions, except actually report on them. True fax - ask
> my wife

Don't need to ask her, seen it with my own eyes...

It keeps amazing me that the software actually does work most of the time.

> > That's how you write bugs :) There's nothing wrong with it if you take the
> > take to understand what it's doing but it's too often done blindly.
> > 
> >>> > > I really would like to hear your opinions on that question because I
> >>> > > feel it's an important topic.
> 
> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
> 
> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
> The bad thing about php is that they do.

Couldn't find that particular quote, but the following page should be required 
study for everyone starting with programming. (It's for PHP, but should work 
for ALL languages):
http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/why-youre-a-bad-php-programmer--net-18384


> I suppose there's a place for that kind of thing, a lot of corporate
> systems are mostly boilerplate where a huge framework (and equally huge
> expensive over-specced hardware) gets the job done.

Well, when you have a big rocketbooster for propulsion, why not build a car 
from solid rock without wheels?

> The thing that
> really changes is the exact calculations in the business-logic
> middleware layer, someone else did the heavy lifting of joining all the
> modules together to resemble the real-world workflow.

And then these same corporates want to add new features and such which means 
improving the codebase. Breaking the badly (or not at all) understood logic in 
the process.

> It's not my way of working though, and I suspect most Gentooers tend the
> same way if they get the chance.

++ this is why I still use Gentoo...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[J. Roeleveld]

On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> > so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> > something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
> > 
> > The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
> > The bad thing about php is that they do.
> 
> Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for a
> minute that you used some php parser ...  :p

It's not that old for an "old saying".
I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google.

And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon....

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Alan McKinnon]

On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
>>> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
>>> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
>>>
>>> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
>>> The bad thing about php is that they do.
>>
>> Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for a
>> minute that you used some php parser ...  :p
> 
> It's not that old for an "old saying".
> I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using Google.
> 
> And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan McKinnon....


Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to
lots of people.

About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-)


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[walt]

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:00:36 +0200
"J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org> wrote:

> the following page should be required 
> study for everyone starting with programming. (It's for PHP, but
> should work for ALL languages):
> http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/why-youre-a-bad-php-programmer--net-18384

Excellent article, thanks, and interesting website.  I've been looking
for a good javascript tutorial and I see they offer several of them.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:47:58 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:

It may be that in recent years the trend has made it to the FOSS community, 
but I'd say it goes to the mid to early 90s with Microsoft's Visual IDEs. 

By the late 90s you could "write" a Windows GUI application in VisualBasic 6 
mostly by drag and drop on the visual designer. With Visual Studio .NET in 
2000/1 your could do it for a web application (ASP.NET) as well and you could 
design a database driven web app without writing a single line of code. In 
VS2008 they came up with a designer where you write the program by dragging 
blocks into a flowchart[1].

These tools are nice (at least the ones for GUI apps). I wish we had similar 
tools of the same quality in the FOSS world. The problem is that you'll get 
programmers that only know how to drag and drop and when it comes to the 10% 
of the program that needs to be coded they do a horrible job.


1. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg983474%28v=vs.110%29.aspx

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior

[Marc Joliet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

Am Tue, 4 Aug 2015 00:37:54 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:50:24 -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> 
> > > Is this server-related?  I have only simple workstations/laptops and I
> > > don't enable systemd-networkd at all.  It seems that NetworkManager
> > > takes care of both wired and wireless without assistance (including
> > > dhcp).  
> > 
> > In latptops/workstations NetworkManager takes care of everything.
> > However, I still enable systemd-networkd and systemd-resolved in my
> > laptop and workstations. If enabled without any configuration, it just
> > monitors the network interfaces and keeps them "in the loop" for the
> > rest of the system to know about them from a central registry. It
> > doesn't interfere with NetworkManager (or any other network management
> > program for that matter).
> 
> Alternatively, you can use systemd-networkd and do without
> NetworkManager altogether, avoiding a load of dependencies if you don't
> use GNOME.
> 
> For typical wireless networks, wpa_gui is more than adequate for
> configuration.

I concur, I switched to systemd-netword over two months ago.  This replaced
netctl on my desktop, and both netctl and NetworkManager on my laptop.  My
experience with it so far has been just as good as with netifrc and netctl.
The only potential downside is that (at least AFAICT) there is no way to restart
an individual network.

HTH
-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup

[-- Attachment #2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1267 bytes --]

On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent
> >>> years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs
> >>> and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
> >>> 
> >>> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write code.
> >>> The bad thing about php is that they do.
> >> 
> >> Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for
> >> a minute that you used some php parser ...  :p
> > 
> > It's not that old for an "old saying".
> > I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using
> > Google.
> > 
> > And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan
> > McKinnon....
> 
> Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to
> lots of people.
> 
> About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-)

Run the same search for perl - it's probably more appropriate than php and may 
find older samples of the same ol' saying.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[J. Roeleveld]

On Thursday, August 06, 2015 02:59:09 PM Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > >>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent
> > >>> years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs
> > >>> and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
> > >>> 
> > >>> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write
> > >>> code.
> > >>> The bad thing about php is that they do.
> > >> 
> > >> Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for
> > >> a minute that you used some php parser ...  :p
> > > 
> > > It's not that old for an "old saying".
> > > I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using
> > > Google.
> > > 
> > > And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan
> > > McKinnon....
> > 
> > Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to
> > lots of people.
> > 
> > About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-)
> 
> Run the same search for perl - it's probably more appropriate than php and
> may find older samples of the same ol' saying.

Nope, can't find a single hit with either line.

Also would surprise me, as the largest part of the massive amount of bad code 
(mostly copy/pasted from each other) arrived after PHP appeared.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd-224 Look out for new networking behavior [FIXED]

[Alan McKinnon]

On 06/08/2015 20:28, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, August 06, 2015 02:59:09 PM Mick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent
>>>>>> years so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs
>>>>>> and do something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The nice thing about php is it let's everyone and their dog write
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>> The bad thing about php is that they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your imagination[1] footnote didn't make it to the list.  I thought for
>>>>> a minute that you used some php parser ...  :p
>>>>
>>>> It's not that old for an "old saying".
>>>> I can't find a reference to that saying older then august 2014 using
>>>> Google.
>>>>
>>>> And all those are links to the same email written by our own Alan
>>>> McKinnon....
>>>
>>> Ah! That's because it was I who made it up years ago and have told it to
>>> lots of people.
>>>
>>> About a year ago is obviously the first time I wrote it down :-)
>>
>> Run the same search for perl - it's probably more appropriate than php and
>> may find older samples of the same ol' saying.
> 
> Nope, can't find a single hit with either line.
> 
> Also would surprise me, as the largest part of the massive amount of bad code 
> (mostly copy/pasted from each other) arrived after PHP appeared.

It works just as well for php, perl, basic, VB, J2EE frameworks and any
draggy-droppy workflow thing that claims to produce runnable code.

It seems that only C is immune, probably because of the high barrier to
entry that must be climbed before writing something useful (and hello
world is not useful :-) )


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com