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.