On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:05:34PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:32:32PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: [... > >See? I do care. > > In context, Greg talked about the "common case" [...] Yes, and I do appreciate highly that the "non-common case" is still possible. > >Once I understood it, my reaction was "meh". > > You still seem to not fully understand it. (Specifically, the > difference between "persistent" names and "predictable" names. Oh, I sure do. > One > of the problems systemd was trying to solve was predictability in > the absence of persistent storage at boot time, e.g., for initial > installation, or for remote storage.) I get that. As I already mentioned, I was confronted with that kind of problem "back then", Debian 3.1 aka Sarge. "Meh" means... "it doesn't really solve the problem -- so it's not worth the added complexity" -- as always, to me. [...] > So does dismising everything new as broken because it fixes things > you don't care about. Keep that for the next post... > The bottom line is that in most cases the predictable names "just > work". In some corner cases something goes wrong, just like in some > corner cases every preceding system went wrong. Exactly. I do prefer to be prepared for those corner cases and to learn to deal with them. A 99.8% system is, in this context not superior to a 92% system. Cheers -- tomás
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature