Re: Question to new network device names
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 23:00:19 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> 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.
I see. So you never consider the vanguard's problems or expectations?
If it's a question of timing, then waiting would usually suit me; as
I said, I'm usually at the trailing rather than the cutting edge.
> > 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.
Fair enough. Pick a word you prefer and override my choice of default.
Perhaps "prefer" or "override" will do. Meanwhile, I shall have words
with whoever chose the directory name /etc/default/. At the back of
my mind was adding net.ifnames=0 to GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX in
/etc/default/grub.
> > For people upgrading, Debian ensured that there would not be an
> > unexpected change; the older methods prevail¹.
>
> Missing footnote?
No, I put the matching ¹ at the words "udev's persistent-net rules"
in the footnote (which was more of an aside) as this is an older
method that prevails. I guess the visibility of the ¹ is something
I have no control over.
> >>> 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.
That can't be right. You don't mean to say that people use
dotted quads to communicate with their local hosts. That's
a lot to commit to memory. I wouldn't say we have an abundance
of devices, but I am using over half the area I reserved for
static addresses, 16 out of 31. I might have been using more
but for the fact that IPv6 is available for direct links.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: