Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Adrian,

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 11:55 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 11:23 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Appletalk, cops, and ipdpp are being removed.
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=1dab47139e6118a420acec8426a860ea4b40c379
> >
> > Please shout if you have any objections.
>
> Isn't that a bit late?

It can always be reverted...

> I'm a bit annoyed that Arnd doesn't announce such removal requests
> on the proper lists? This is something that should be asked among
> the retro community, not on some random Linux mailing list.
>
> And, FWIW, I am against removing AppleTalk because it actually allows
> you to build your own TimeMachine server using Linux [1]. It's really
> useful for backing up macOS machines over the network.

Thanks, good to know!

> > [1] https://dgross.ca/blog/linux-time-machine-server/

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi Geert,

On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 13:19 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Isn't that a bit late?
> 
> It can always be reverted...

Sure, but I'd rather see such discussions before merging the removal
patch. Best would have been to reach out to the netatalk project, for
example and ask [1]. They just released version 3.1.18 of the netatalk
server in October 2023.

It's an incredibly cool project because it allows you to replace the
expensive Apple TimeMachine hardware with a cheap Raspberry Pi ;-).

Adrian
> 

> [1] https://netatalk.sourceforge.io/

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 13:26 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Geert,
> 
> On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 13:19 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Isn't that a bit late?
> > 
> > It can always be reverted...
> 
> Sure, but I'd rather see such discussions before merging the removal
> patch. Best would have been to reach out to the netatalk project, for
> example and ask [1]. They just released version 3.1.18 of the
> netatalk
> server in October 2023.
> 
> It's an incredibly cool project because it allows you to replace the
> expensive Apple TimeMachine hardware with a cheap Raspberry Pi ;-).

But... Time Machine debuted with 10.5 and AppleTalk got removed in
10.6; did the actual TimeCapsules ever support AppleTalk, or were they
always TCP/IP-based?

(also TimeMachine-capable Airport Extremes [A1354] are like $15 on
eBay; that's cheaper than a Raspberry Pi)

This patch only removes the Linux-side ipddp driver (eg MacIP) so if
Time Capsules never supported AppleTalk, this patch is unrelated to
TimeMachine.

What this patch *may* break is Linux as a MacIP gateway, allowing
AppleTalk-only machines to talk TCP/IP to systems. But that's like
what, the 128/512/Plus and PowerBook Duo/1xx? Everything else had a
PDS/NuBus slot or onboard Ethernet and could do native
MacTCP/OpenTransport...

Dan

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023, at 21:27, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 13:26 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Hi Geert,
>> 
>> On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 13:19 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > > Isn't that a bit late?
>> > 
>> > It can always be reverted...
>> 
>> Sure, but I'd rather see such discussions before merging the removal
>> patch. Best would have been to reach out to the netatalk project, for
>> example and ask [1]. They just released version 3.1.18 of the
>> netatalk
>> server in October 2023.

I think you mean netatalk 2.2 for appletalk support, as the 3.x
versions only implement AFP over IP, with no localtalk/appletalk
support.

>> It's an incredibly cool project because it allows you to replace the
>> expensive Apple TimeMachine hardware with a cheap Raspberry Pi ;-).
>
> But... Time Machine debuted with 10.5 and AppleTalk got removed in
> 10.6; did the actual TimeCapsules ever support AppleTalk, or were they
> always TCP/IP-based?
>
> (also TimeMachine-capable Airport Extremes [A1354] are like $15 on
> eBay; that's cheaper than a Raspberry Pi)
>
> This patch only removes the Linux-side ipddp driver (eg MacIP) so if
> Time Capsules never supported AppleTalk, this patch is unrelated to
> TimeMachine.

If we had not removed all localtalk support already, ipddp
might have been used to bridge between a pre-ethernet mac
running macip and an IP based AFP server (netatalk or time machine).
Without localtalk support, that is not all that interesting of
course.

> What this patch *may* break is Linux as a MacIP gateway, allowing
> AppleTalk-only machines to talk TCP/IP to systems. But that's like
> what, the 128/512/Plus and PowerBook Duo/1xx? Everything else had a
> PDS/NuBus slot or onboard Ethernet and could do native
> MacTCP/OpenTransport...

As far as I can tell, https://github.com/jasonking3/macipgw
should work fine as a replacement for ipddp.

     Arnd

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 15:27 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> But... Time Machine debuted with 10.5 and AppleTalk got removed in
> 10.6; did the actual TimeCapsules ever support AppleTalk, or were they
> always TCP/IP-based?

netatalk has two actively maintained versions, one for AppleTalk (2.2.x
series) and one for TCP/IP (3.x series). Both are still being developed
and supported [1].

> (also TimeMachine-capable Airport Extremes [A1354] are like $15 on
> eBay; that's cheaper than a Raspberry Pi)

I know that commercial entities don't have interest in legacy architectures
and protocols. But Linux isn't a commercial-only project so legacy applications
have a valid use case. Most people in the Linux community don't have a use case
for IBM mainframes, yet they aren't in sending patches to get s390 support removed.

I understand that sometimes old code needs to be dropped when it becomes
a burden which is why I also agreed to drop ia64 support since I have
heard complaints from multiple upstream projects and I also know that a
lot of stuff there is broken with no one willing to fix it.

But I don't understand the removal in this case. What particular burden
does a legacy networking protocol pose if it can be easily disabled at
compile time to reduce the attack surface?

> This patch only removes the Linux-side ipddp driver (eg MacIP) so if
> Time Capsules never supported AppleTalk, this patch is unrelated to
> TimeMachine.
> 
> What this patch *may* break is Linux as a MacIP gateway, allowing
> AppleTalk-only machines to talk TCP/IP to systems. But that's like
> what, the 128/512/Plus and PowerBook Duo/1xx? Everything else had a
> PDS/NuBus slot or onboard Ethernet and could do native
> MacTCP/OpenTransport...

Which is a valid use case for people from the retro-computing community
as can be seen from the netatalk description above. I don't think that
Arnd reached out to the netatalk project and asked whether the code
is still needed, did he?

Adrian

> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netatalk

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> 
> If we had not removed all localtalk support already, ipddp might have 
> been used to bridge between a pre-ethernet mac running macip and an IP 
> based AFP server (netatalk or time machine). Without localtalk support, 
> that is not all that interesting of course.
> 

That line of reasoning misunderstands the value of the localtalk code (and 
conveniently neglects the actual cost of keeping it in-tree).

The existing zilog driver works on all 68k and powerpc Macs with built-in 
serial ports. If we were to complete that driver by adding the missing 
localtalk support, it would create new opportunities for creative 
users/developers who already run Linux on those systems.

Those users/developers would surely derive value from that functionality 
in ways we cannot anticipate, as happens over and over again in the 
(retrocomputing) community.

So the value of the missing zilog localtalk functionality would be 
proportional to the number of Linux systems out there with the necessary 
serial hardware. It's value is not a function of the potential business 
opportunities for your sponsors, despite the prevailing incentives.

It was the potential value of the missing code for localtalk (Zilog SCC) 
and Apple Sound Chip that caused me to place that work near the top of my 
to-do list. But that was several years ago. Unfortunately, with bug fixing 
and recapping, I still can't find time to write the necessary code.

So I can't object to the removal of the localtalk code. But I do object to 
the underhand manner in which it is done.

Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Thu, 2023-11-02 at 13:13 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> So I can't object to the removal of the localtalk code. But I do object to 
> the underhand manner in which it is done.

I agree. I have the impression that the actual users of the affected code are
never asked. It's usually a question posed on a mailing list where 99% of the
affected users don't hang around.

Naturally, there won't be any objections to the removal because affected users
didn't receive a heads-up in the first place.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913