On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 21:52:15 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:44:39PM +0000, Brian wrote: > > [...] > > > For someone who has been using Debian for many years the position you > > expound is understandable and viable to support [...] > > > But remember new users; does it really matter to them? They have no > > personal history to point to. As you point out, the engineering > > advantages are unarguable [...] > > I'm not going to argue too much, since "de gustibus non est disputandum", > as they say. But I'm a little concerned to see the innards of the > system to get less accessible, bit by bit,
Eh? How does calling something by the string "wlx00c0ca364bd2" instead of "wlan0" make it less accessible? At least it's not telling a lie, which the old naming scheme sometimes does. > in the name of some > engineering advantages which only matter in an uncommon context > (pluggable Ethernet devices being such a case here). When I ran machines containing two identical ethernet cards, it was lucky dip as to which card got which name. That alone would have made the new method far preferable, had it been available at the time. > In my eyes, the main asset of Free Software is that the end user > *can* study and hack it. Baroque engineering is a heavy debt piling > up against hackability, and should be considered in the cost analysis. > > I understand that it is a trade-off, and that different folks will > see the sweet spot at different points. I think you understand something different by "trade-off". You gain several new methods of naming interfaces and lose nothing. The only people who can be said to lose are those upgrading (which preserves the existing names) who might remain unaware of the new options available to them. Cheers, David.
