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

Re: Question to new network device names



On 2017-08-24 at 12:40, 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:

>>> 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[1] *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.

Well, yes - or at least until lots of people are *about to* have
problems pretty soon, unless the default is changed first. That is at
least preferable to *causing* lots of people to have problems (or at
least experience additional inconvenience) by changing the default too
far in advance.

> If you want a simpler default, can you not follow the instructions 
> and give yourself one.

Er... what?

A default is "what you get if you don't take steps to get something else".

If you have to take steps to achieve a given configuration, by
definition that configuration is not the default.

Thus, since the "old" naming scheme here no longer comes as the default
(for new installs, et cetera), I cannot make it the default.

I can certainly make local changes to get a non-default configuration,
but that does not make that configuration the default.

> For people upgrading, Debian ensured that there would not be an
> unexpected change; the older methods prevail¹.

Missing footnote?

>>> 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.

Just offhand, I don't think I even remember a time when that file was
used (outside of special one-off cases) for such hosts. I also don't
remember encountering such a special one-off case in the past several
years to a decade, at least, although I wouldn't be at all surprised to
learn they still crop up.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: