Re: Adapter Names on Stretch
Quoting Gene Heskett (gheskett@wdtv.com):
> I have assumed that dhcpd can probably deal with it if running
> network-mangler. But I am staticly addressed, and N-M is the first
> thing I excise after a new install.
>
> Maybe even wicd can but I haven't used it recently either as its not part
> of a default install. My local network is 100% static. So when udev
> screws me, I an not able to access anything or anybody to ask what
> hapoened. And static cannot deal with its interfaces being renamed
> after the interface has been brought up.
>
> I guess the udev way is the way it will be, but in that event, the bug, a
> huge one, needs a fixit script included with udev, and an entry in the
> udev man page under "see also' so anyone with the sense to run man
> network would see as a see also.
>
> Neither exist that I am aware of, and I take the ignoring of folks who
> use static addressing into consideration in terms of having a working
> network rug jerked out from under them not at all well. I will
> therefore bitch. Fortunately it was recorded in the messages file,
> which told me what I had to do to make it work once again. Would our
> mythical Joe and Judy Lunchbucket user have what it takes to fix it?
> Heck no.
>
> But why should I be punished because I use static addresss defined in the
> hosts file? Maybe a bit more trouble to setup initially, but that was
> 17+ years ago when it was the only way to do it. And its far simpler to
> maintain than all the moving targets udev and dhcp can be and are giving
> us, IMO just to harrass the long time users, which it does a fine job
> of.
"Punished" is your take. The world has moved on. Everything is
dynamic. Static configuration limits what linux can be used for.
When people hotplug their backup drive, plug in their wifi dongle,
dock their laptop or walk into an airport with it, they don't expect
to have to do a bunch of low-level configuration changes.
If you *really* run a statically configured machine, then it has to
remain static. Juggling NICs is not static.
The system can't read your mind. It doesn't understand the concept of
swapping a NIC. If you replace the NIC, it configures the new one. It
doesn't *know* that you aren't going to put the first one back in, so
it keeps the first one's configuration on file, rather than throwing
it away. After all, you may be about to employ two NICs. It doesn't
know and it doesn't try to guess. If the card is dead, remove its
configuration yourself if you must.
Numbers are cheap. What's wrong with eth5?
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: