| 1 |
On 29/03/2013 12:29, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> One you can control, the another you can't. So still not FUD. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
You do not really control it any more than the kernel. The fact that me |
| 5 |
and you can edit an udev ruleset to "control" it, does not mean that |
| 6 |
most users see it as a black box. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The news item reads better. I would still either avoid showing the |
| 9 |
NET_PATH example or describe that that is not the final result because |
| 10 |
on a laptop, NET_PATH almost certainly will *not* match the final |
| 11 |
interface name: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
flame@saladin~ % udevadm test-builtin net_id /sys/class/net/eno1 2>/dev/null |
| 14 |
ID_NET_NAME_MAC=enx0026b9d7bf1f |
| 15 |
ID_OUI_FROM_DATABASE=Dell Inc |
| 16 |
ID_NET_NAME_ONBOARD=eno1 |
| 17 |
ID_NET_LABEL_ONBOARD=en Onboard LAN |
| 18 |
ID_NET_NAME_PATH=enp0s25 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And I would not expect users to all go read the wiki and try to figure |
| 21 |
out why you said it would be named enp0s25 when it gets the name eno1. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 25 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives