On 03/10/15 20:49, Simon Hobson wrote:
poitr pogo wrote:
I thought it was stupid for other reasons, but now that you
mention it,
yeah, naming it after the particular slot into which it's plugged
in is stupid, and if you take the box apart and move things
around, you can break your OS.
no
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 05/10/2015 18:54, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
[...]
>> A file
>>
>> /etc/udev/rules.d/75-persistent-net-generator.rules
>>
>> can be created (on Debian up to wheezy at least) to avoid this "install
>> the system to new hardware and get a whole bunch of new ethN instead of
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why are the virtual Ethernet given random addresses?
Well they have to have something !
For Xen, they've registered an OUI to get a block of MAC addresses to use. If
you don't specify teh MAC address in the VM config then it'll pick one at
random, but yo
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 05/10/2015 18:54, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> Yes, changing the MAC address of a real network interface can be done to fool
> a DHCP server (I don't see any other reason),
> but this is done in user space, after the kernel has registered it.
Le 05/10/2015 18:54, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 03/10/2015 09:49, Simon Hobson a écrit :
Lets face it - there is no "right" answer to this other than a system
with enough intelligence to read the user/admin's mind and work out
what they intend to happen - and I think we'r
- Original Message -
> From: "Rainer Weikusat"
> Didier Kryn writes:
>> Ethernet interfaces are maybe the only issue, which explains why
>> distros have implemented a solution by the means of udev rules. The
>> way it is implemented is secure: every new ethernet device is given a
>>
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 03/10/2015 09:49, Simon Hobson a écrit :
>> Lets face it - there is no "right" answer to this other than a system
>> with enough intelligence to read the user/admin's mind and work out
>> what they intend to happen - and I think we're a bit off that yet !
>> Looking back,
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:28:44 +0200
Didier Kryn wrote:
> As was remarked already, disks are no longer a problem since
> partitions are uniquely identified, so that nobody cares of a random
> device name.
Some do, when they issue a df command, and the result is a mess of
unidentifiable UU
Le 03/10/2015 09:49, Simon Hobson a écrit :
Lets face it - there is no "right" answer to this other than a system with
enough intelligence to read the user/admin's mind and work out what they intend to happen
- and I think we're a bit off that yet !
Looking back, I think I've "moved" something
Somon:
> k...@aspodata.se wrote:
...
> > ... after all, fstab and /dev/-names are just
> > for the user space. The kernel mostly only cares about the maj/min
> > numbers, or am I wrong?
>
> That's the case all along. The question is how to map those node
> IDs to something human readable.
Maybe i
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 04:57:15PM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
> k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>
> >> This is why you use UUID= or LABEL= in /etc/fstab.
>
> +1 for that. I use LABEL=, but it's annoying that Debian's grub-install
> doesn't handle that (it only has options for device name or UUID).
>
>
k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>> This is why you use UUID= or LABEL= in /etc/fstab.
+1 for that. I use LABEL=, but it's annoying that Debian's grub-install doesn't
handle that (it only has options for device name or UUID).
> Let's face it, thoose other names of the device is just symlinks
Does that
Steve:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 00:08:58 +0200 (CEST)
> k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> > Hendrik:
> > > Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > > > Can we agree that ww shouldnn't have to change our configurations
> > > > if we do not change anything in the hardware?
> > > That would be a reasonable base requirement.
> >
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 00:08:58 +0200 (CEST)
k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Hendrik:
> > Hendrik Boom wrote:
> >
> > > Can we agree that ww shouldnn't have to change our configurations
> > > if we do not change anything in the hardware?
> >
> > That would be a reasonable base requirement.
>
> What if
Hendrik:
> Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> > Can we agree that ww shouldnn't have to change our configurations if we
> > do not change anything in the hardware?
>
> That would be a reasonable base requirement.
What if I have say 5 disks /dev/sd[a-e]; if someone accidentally pulled
out /dev/sdc, and o
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> Can we agree that ww shouldnn't have to change our configurations if we
> do not change anything in the hardware?
That would be a reasonable base requirement.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 08:49:04AM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
> poitr pogo wrote:
>
> > > I thought it was stupid for other reasons, but now that you mention it,
> >
> > > yeah, naming it after the particular slot into which it's plugged in is
> > > stupid, and if you take the box apart and move
poitr pogo wrote:
> > I thought it was stupid for other reasons, but now that you mention it,
>
> > yeah, naming it after the particular slot into which it's plugged in is
> > stupid, and if you take the box apart and move things around, you can
> > break your OS.
> >
>
> no. it is not stupid.
29-09-2015 16:48, "Steve Litt" napisał(a):
>
> I thought it was stupid for other reasons, but now that you mention it,
> yeah, naming it after the particular slot into which it's plugged in is
> stupid, and if you take the box apart and move things around, you can
> break your OS.
>
no. it is no
Simon Hobson writes:
[...]
> However, I am happy with the way Udev does it. Booting a "new" system
> results in an initially random device ordering, but once it's created
> a rules file the devices stay stable until "something changes". When
> changing hardware, or shifting the image to new hard
Simon Hobson writes:
> Steve Litt wrote:
>>> The whole point of having 'an operating system'
>>> is that it provides an abstract interface userspace software can use
>>> to interact with the physical components of a different computer
>>> according to the functions they're supposed to be provide,
Steve Litt wrote:
>> The whole point of having 'an operating system'
>> is that it provides an abstract interface userspace software can use
>> to interact with the physical components of a different computer
>> according to the functions they're supposed to be provide, regardless
>> of the way t
> > The whole point of having 'an operating system'
> > is that it provides an abstract interface userspace software can use
> > to interact with the physical components of a different computer
> > according to the functions they're supposed to be provide, regardless
> > of the way this particular
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:27:32 +0100
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> The whole point of having 'an operating system'
> is that it provides an abstract interface userspace software can use
> to interact with the physical components of a different computer
> according to the functions they're supposed to be
24 matches
Mail list logo
