On 2017-08-24 at 11:43, David Wright wrote: > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
>> Getting back to the original point, NIC names -- virtually every >> computer has exactly one or two NICs, and is best served by eth0 >> and wlan0. The computers with 3-5 NICs are usually best served that >> way. More complex naming schemes are helpful when you have a router >> or switch, and it's nice that Debian supports that, but hardly a >> good default. > > 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. > 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... [1] Actually, the more precise statement involving "at most one NIC of each type, wired and wireless" would be more accurate, because a machine with two NICs of the same type would still benefit from the "predictable network interface names" scheme. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
