On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:10:25AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:01:23AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >The primary drawback of this method is that in the common case of a > >single-user home desktop system with a single NIC, the name "eth0" is > >expected to Just Work for whatever NIC happens to be in the system at > >the time. > > It's also fundamentally unpredictable for the same reason that you > can't just rely on the kernel name in the first place [...]
> to work around. (And really, in the single user/single nic desktop
> case, the user doesn't even *care* if the installer configures eth0
> or foo11
See? I do care.
> because they don't need to know that. This is an issue
> mostly for people who know a little bit, want to tinker, and become
> irrationally angry when they need to learn something new.)
This is insulting. I'll try to explain.
I, for one, knew about the inherent problem with the interface
names.
When the persistent schema came up, I took interest in it, since
I had hit the problem quite a few times and well, if someone
solved it, I'd like to know.
Once I understood it, my reaction was "meh".
Sure some progress for totally naive users (which were starting
to use Linux distros more and more, which is a Good Thing), so
it made (a bit of [1]) sense to
(a) have it as default schema and
(b) for us, the somewhat experienced folks to understand it,
to be able to help newbies...
but for me and my installations, it wasn't worth the more
complicated names. I still do "sudo ifup eth0" and don't really
want to do "sudo ifup &$#*@%#". I had seen those things before
(was it Solaris) and -- oh well.
Now dismissing folks who don't share your opinion on some
shiny new thing as "just resistant to change" or "tinkerers"
is a horrible antipattern. Please don't do that. It leads
to ugly discussions and hurt feelings. Been there, done that.
Cheers
[1] afaik the jury is still out on that, but let's concede
it, for the sake of argument.
-- tomás
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
