Re: systemd: some more questions
Ralf Mardorf writes:
> > Any reason for this?
> >
> > This could create "a certain amount of work" to people used to
> > automate things by means of shell scripts...
>
> It's not only work to edit scripts,
And hunting those you wrote years.... I wonder how will libvirt react
to this name change.
> but also a pain to remember such a
> counterintuitive name. IMO eth_ is easy to remember, whereas enp_s_ is
> horrible.
Yep. What does it mean?
> However, we need to become used to systemd, SysVinit/initscripts have no
> future, so we shouldn't waste additional time for lamenting ;).
Systemd is bound to Linux. There are other free kernel around that can
run the GNU userspace utilities.
Linux may lose shares of market where it is stronger (serverside), I
would simply change O.S.
> I don't use NetworkManger and things like that, but write scripts.
> Fortunately editors have options to replace terms.
Me too. I have a set of fixed network configuration (work here, work
there, home...) and a script to switch among them. Plust there are
some very old scripts - still in use - to start the OS-from-hell VMs.
> Perhaps you can write a script to automatically change such terms
> without using an editor.
I think I would program my editor to work on some kind of
/usr/bin/find output.
Am I the only one there who readed this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix_Programming_Environment?
(once reading this you think that the .sh suffix is not only
unnecessary, it is UGLY!)
--
/\ ___ Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____ African word
//--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamico meaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software not install
già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso... Debian"
Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO
Reply to: