Re: Question to new network device names
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:40:28 -0500
- From: David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Question to new network device names
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 12:02:11 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> 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 *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.
By that argument, you wait until lots of people have problems before
you change the default to accomodate them, instead of thinking ahead.
If you want a simpler default, can you not follow the instructions
and give yourself one. For people upgrading, Debian ensured that
there would not be an unexpected change; the older methods prevail¹.
> > 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...
It's the *only* source here for such as 192.168.1.13 wasp
but I was assuming you'd understand I was talking about non-local
hosts on the Internet.
>  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.
Yes, and I remember the problems I had when all my NICs were
3c509s from the free shop (Academic Computing Services) and
I put two in the same box. These (problems) would be unacceptable
You can't please everyone. You can find threads here complaining
loud and long about udev's persistent-net rules¹, one of the
preceding methods "foisted" on us by Debian.