Daniel Frey <djqf...@gmail.com> writes: > On 12/19/2016 10:15 AM, lee wrote: >> "Walter Dnes" <waltd...@waltdnes.org> writes: >> >>> Similarly, the vast majority of home users have a machine with one >>> ethernet port, and in the past it's always been eth0. >> >> Since 10 years or so, the default is two ports. > > Not in any of the computers I've built. Generally only high end or > workstation/server boards have two ports. > > i.e. not what the typical home user would buy.
It is not reasonable to assume that a "typical home user" would want a computer with a crappy board to run Linux on it (or for anything else). If they are that cheap, they're better off buying a used one. When they are sufficiently clueless to want something like that, what does it matter what the network interfaces are called. >>> Now the name varies in each machine depending on the motherboard >>> layout; oogabooga11? foobar42? It may be static, but you don't know >>> what it'll be, without first booting the machine. In a truly >>> Orwellian twist, this "feature" is referred to as "Predictable" >>> Network Interface Names. It only makes things easier for corporate >>> machines acting as gateways/routers, with multiple ports. Again, the >>> average home user is being jerked around for a corporate agenda. >> >> Perhaps the hidden agenda was to make the names indistinguishable and >> unrecognisable, forcing everyone to use copy and paste --- after at >> least double-checking which port is which --- to eliminate human and >> typing errors in order to get more predictable results. >> >> Otherwise, how would using unrecognisable names for network ports make >> anything easier for corporate machines? >> > > It is even more frustrating that these so-called predictable network > names actually can change on a reboot, it's happened to me more than > once when multiple network cards are detected in a different order. I haven't had that happen with the unrecognisable names. Aren't they supposed to prevent things like that?
