On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:45:07 -0600 Nate Bargmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> * On 2016 06 Nov 10:21 -0600, Rowland Penny wrote: > > > Why, oh why, did systemd-udevd rename eth0 to eth1 ???????? > > As much as I dislike SD, as other have also mentioned, it is not > directly to blame in this case. This bit me long ago as well, long > before SD was a gleam in LP's eye. > > After I thought about it some, there is a certain logic to udev's > behavior but it would seem to make more sense if the network adapter > is on a hot-pluggable interface (PCMCIA, USB, etc.), or is in > addition to the adapter already assigned to eth0 on a PCI bus. The > behavior of assigning eth1 to a new adapter on a PCI bus where the > old adapter no longer is present always struck me as a more Windows > way of doing things where a full installation should be done rather > than moving a hard drive or copying an existing partition to a new > drive or simply swapping a main board as is common among Linux > users. I guess this should have been the warning shot that indicated > that Linux was no longer being developed by/for the hobbyist/DIYer. > > - Nate > I don't really object to re-naming a newly found ethernet card, what concerned me was the fact it happened silently. Rowland _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
