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

Re: Question to new network device names



On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:40:28AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> 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:
> > 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 is the biggest systemic problem I have with Debian today.

You just made an assumption that does not match my reality, and
you didn't even realize that you made it. 

I'm in charge of a lot of Debian-running machines. One of the major
reasons that we chose Debian is because of the promise that we would be
able to upgrade in place, rather than wiping the old OS and reinstalling.

As a result, we buy machines when we need them, not necessarily all at
once. And we expect a new install of Stretch to behave the same way as
an upgraded Wheezy-to-Jessie-to-Stretch. 

It does not.

That makes Debian worth less than it used to be.

-dsr-


Reply to: