On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:16:03PM +0100, Joe wrote: > Yes, I know what to expect with Sid, which I've been running since > before Sarge was released, and this isn't it. Sid is for incorporating > new software variants into a future Stable, and sorting out any > integration issues, not for troubleshooting broken software. It's > supposed to work *before* it arrives in Sid. > > I had one (1) Ethernet adaptor, which used to be called eth0. I can > understand potential confusion if there was more than one, and I've seen > that happen. What conceivable reason is there for designating it eth1, > the second Ethernet interface, when the machine contains only one? > Workarounds there might be, but why do I need them? > > The thread is about the wisdom of setting up networking in The Debian > Way. The point I was making is that The Debian Way today clearly isn't > The Debian Way of a month ago. It used to involve editing a text file, > and at worst tweaking the modules a bit, now it involves learning the > operation of an entirely automatic system that the user isn't even > supposed to see, and how to override it when it screws up. As far as I'm > concerned, that's The Windows Way, and it doesn't belong in Linux.
Here Hear!. However, your anger is misdirected. Udev is part of the 2.6 kernel not part of Debian. If a new version of udev comes down the pike to go with a new version of the Kernel, don't blame Debian. Sure, I suppose they could stall brining a new kernel into Sid until udev was fixed but my jaundiced view is that udev will never be fixed it will just continue to make Linux look more and more like windows; Lindows. I wish it was more like OpenBSD where there are no eth*, but numbered instances of drivers by name. I _think_ the order is based on hardware (e.g. what PCI slot its in) and so doesn't flop around like udev does. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
