On 10/16/2011 09:34 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 10/16/2011 01:56 PM, agraham wrote: >> >> The real problem here is the designers of the concept lost sight of the >> actual benefit to the user, the problem as I would state is: >> >> "Provide a means that allows consistent naming of network devices". >> >> That should have translated into eth0 is "ALWAYS" the first device, eth1 >> is "ALWAYS" the second device etc.. the biosdevname should have then >> been used to create that relationship and _nothing else_. > > Do read the feature description and related discussions. It's not like > you are the first person to think of this. > > Rahul
Yep, a few weeks ago I wasted a number of hours drilling down and reading all the docs, email threads from the beginning and my conclusion then was the same as it is now. I agree in principle with this change, but not the "renaming" of existing "well know" device names such that the opposite effect is caused by the implementation. Albert -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
