On Fri 25 Aug 2017 at 09:22:56 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 02:20:38AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 25 August 2017 01:27:47 David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > > But what has that to do with having the proper entry's
> > > > in /etc/resolv.conf? Whose active lines
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 02:20:38AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 25 August 2017 01:27:47 David Wright wrote:
>
> > > But what has that to do with having the proper entry's
> > > in /etc/resolv.conf? Whose active lines are:
> > >
> > > nameserver 192.168.71.1
> > > search host,dns
> >
>
Hi all,
with great interest I read all your discusssions. They were very interesting
and I got a lot of informations. Thanks for it!
I still wondered, if the new naming scheme is more usable for unexperienced
users, say, someone with a notebook and often changing devices, like usb-
drives,
On Friday 25 August 2017 01:27:47 David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 25 Aug 2017 at 00:54:11 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2017 22:15:53 David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 20:58:18 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 24 August 2017 12:30:37 Dan Ritter
On Fri 25 Aug 2017 at 00:54:11 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 24 August 2017 22:15:53 David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 20:58:18 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Thursday 24 August 2017 12:30:37 Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:43:56AM -0500,
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.
On Thursday 24 August 2017 22:15:53 David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 20:58:18 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2017 12:30:37 Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:43:56AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > > The history of computing is littered with
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
>>>
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 20:58:18 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 24 August 2017 12:30:37 Dan Ritter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:43:56AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > The history of computing is littered with statements like
> > > "virtually every computer has exactly one or
On Thursday 24 August 2017 12:30:37 Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:43:56AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > There are, of course, five different ways to do this (at a
> > > minimum):
> > >
> > > 1. /dev/sda1 is based on
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 12:30:37 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:43:56AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > There are, of course, five different ways to do this (at a
> > > minimum):
> > >
> > > 1. /dev/sda1 is
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 12:59:46 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:40:28AM -0500, 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:
> > >
> > > > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 13:35:17 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:51:48AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > For you, they wrote the last screenful of
> > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
>
> One of the bullet points on that
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:51:48AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> For you, they wrote the last screenful of
> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
One of the bullet points on that page says:
* Stable interface names even if you have to replace broken
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:40:28AM -0500, 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:
> >
> > > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > If things ever do reach a point where that is no
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 11:56:55 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> At my workplace, we have over 4,000 computers, which run Windows most of
> the time but are occasionally booted to a bare-bones live-CD type of
> Linux environment (and not a particularly customizable one) for
> diagnostic and/or
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 12:02:11 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:43:56AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > There are, of course, five different ways to do this (at a
> > minimum):
> >
> > 1. /dev/sda1 is based on discovery order. Changes in discovery order
> > may indicate a
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 09:17:00 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-08-24 at 07:52, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >
> >> I stumbled over the new network names (i.e. wl0p8 instead of wlan0), and
> >> of
> >> course I
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
On 2017-08-24 at 11:48, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 08:30:33AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:17:00AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>>> To the best of my awareness, the rationale for calling this
>>> "predictable network interface names" is that, on
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 08:30:33AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:17:00AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
However, I'll point out that machines with this many network interfaces
are *by far* the exception rather than the rule; indeed, even machines
with more than *one*
On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 10:20:52 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 08:30:33AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > This closely parallels the move from using /dev/sdXn to UUIDs for
> > referring to filesystems. Probably superior in theory and doesn't cause
> > any issues as long as
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 08:30:33AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:17:00AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > However, I'll point out that machines with this many network interfaces
> > are *by far* the exception rather than the rule; indeed, even machines
> > with more than
On 2017-08-24 at 09:30, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:17:00AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> However, I'll point out that machines with this many network
>> interfaces are *by far* the exception rather than the rule; indeed,
>> even machines with more than *one* interface
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:17:00AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> However, I'll point out that machines with this many network interfaces
> are *by far* the exception rather than the rule; indeed, even machines
> with more than *one* interface each of wired and wireless are reasonably
> rare.
In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:17:00AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-08-24 at 07:52, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> However, I'll point out that machines with this many network interfaces
> are *by far* the exception rather than the rule [...]
On 2017-08-24 at 07:52, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Hans wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>
>> I stumbled over the new network names (i.e. wl0p8 instead of wlan0), and of
>> course I know, that this is obviously the newe standard (please correct me,
>> i
>> I am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I stumbled over the new network names (i.e. wl0p8 instead of wlan0), and of
> course I know, that this is obviously the newe standard (please correct me, i
> I am wrong).
Relax.
No, this is not just debian, you'll find it on archlinux as well.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Hans wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:11:27
From: Hans <hans.ullr...@loop.de>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Question to new network device names
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:14:06 +000
On 24-08-17, Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I stumbled over the new network names (i.e. wl0p8 instead of wlan0), and of
> course I know, that this is obviously the newe standard (please correct me, i
> I am wrong).
>
> What I would like to know: Is this new naming scheme an international
>
Hi folks,
I stumbled over the new network names (i.e. wl0p8 instead of wlan0), and of
course I know, that this is obviously the newe standard (please correct me, i
I am wrong).
What I would like to know: Is this new naming scheme an international standard
on all linux distributions, or is
32 matches
Mail list logo
