Web lists-archives.com

Re: Question to new network device names




On 2017-08-24 at 11:43, David Wright wrote:

> On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:

>> Getting back to the original point, NIC names -- virtually every
>> computer has exactly one or two NICs, and is best served by eth0
>> and wlan0. The computers with 3-5 NICs are usually best served that
>> way. More complex naming schemes are helpful when you have a router
>> or switch, and it's nice that Debian supports that, but hardly a
>> good default.
> 
> There are plenty of ways that you, or Debian, can set a default. But
> it surprises me that so many people grumble about this change. The
> history of computing is littered with statements like "virtually
> every computer has exactly one or two NICs".

The thing is, currently that statement[1] *is* correct, so *currently*
the default should be suited for that configuration.

If things ever do reach a point where that is no longer the common case,
it would then become appropriate to propose changing the default to one
suited for that more-complex configuration.

But we are not yet there, or indeed anywhere close to there, so that
should not yet be the default.

> This list is full of postings about the complex DNS system. But how
> long did /etc/hosts last?

It's still there and still in use, albeit not as a primary source, last
I checked...


[1] Actually, the more precise statement involving "at most one NIC of
each type, wired and wireless" would be more accurate, because a machine
with two NICs of the same type would still benefit from the "predictable
network interface names" scheme.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature