[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Silly question: Where's eth0?



On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:16:03PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:

>> I was just pointing out that the OP above was complaining
>> about it not working in sid... which is pretty standard expectation
>> for Debian behavior.

>
> Yes, I know what to expect with Sid, which I've been running since before 
> Sarge was released, and this isn't it. Sid is for incorporating new 
> software variants into a future Stable, and sorting out any integration 
> issues, not for troubleshooting broken software. It's supposed to work 
> *before* it arrives in Sid.

well, that's the theory, but how often the reality? honestly quite a
lot as I run sid on all my non-publicly facing machines and have no
realy issue ever, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

>
> I had one (1) Ethernet adaptor, which used to be called eth0. I can 
> understand potential confusion if there was more than one, and I've seen 
> that happen.

I really agree with you. There is no reason it should happen in this
case other than someone must have made a mistake. Or (not knowing the
specifics of udev changes) someone somewhere made a decision that
there weren't going to be any eth0's anymore. My sid laptop renames
its lan from eth0 to eth1 during the initrd phase. Then after
pivot-root, when init is in charge, the wireless interface gets found
and initially designated eth0, but gets renamed to eth2. I don't know
why this is, but there it is.


>
> The thread is about the wisdom of setting up networking in The Debian Way. 
> The point I was making is that The Debian Way today clearly isn't The 
> Debian Way of a month ago. It used to involve editing a text file, and at 
> worst tweaking the modules a bit, now it involves learning the operation of 
> an entirely automatic system that the user isn't even supposed to see, and 
> how to override it when it screws up. As far as I'm concerned, that's The 
> Windows Way, and it doesn't belong in Linux.

again we are in agreement. In the effort to make some sort of
automated networking configuration, which I don't disagree with in
concept, things have gone horribly wrong with network manager,
IMO. With NM and friends around, it is impossi ble to maintain
networking the old way and if it doesn't work then NM way, then you're
screwed. its a little frustrating.

anyway, I didn't mean to offend, and I apologise.

A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: