|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > fedora-users archives|
On 10/16/2011 09:34 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 01:56 PM, agraham wrote:
>> The real problem here is the designers of the concept lost sight of the
>> actual benefit to the user, the problem as I would state is:
>> "Provide a means that allows consistent naming of network devices".
>> That should have translated into eth0 is "ALWAYS" the first device, eth1
>> is "ALWAYS" the second device etc.. the biosdevname should have then
>> been used to create that relationship and _nothing else_.
> Do read the feature description and related discussions. It's not like
> you are the first person to think of this.
Yep, a few weeks ago I wasted a number of hours drilling down and
reading all the docs, email threads from the beginning and my conclusion
then was the same as it is now.
I agree in principle with this change, but not the "renaming" of
existing "well know" device names such that the opposite effect is
caused by the implementation.
-- users mailing list email@example.com To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines