Re: [gentoo-user] from Firefox52: NO pure ALSA?, WAS: Firefox 49.0 & Youtube... Audio: No

[lee]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes:

> On 26/12/2016 20:35, lee wrote:
>> Tom H <tomh0665@×××××.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:07 PM, lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote:
>>>> Tom H <tomh0665@×××××.com> writes:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Frey <djqfrey@×××××.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is even more frustrating that these so-called predictable network
>>>>>> names actually can change on a reboot, it's happened to me more than
>>>>>> once when multiple network cards are detected in a different order.
>>>>>
>>>>> >From Kay Sievers in [1]:
>>>>>
>>>>> <BEGIN>
>>>>> Btw, predictable means it will not change between reboots, that names
>>>>> will not depend on enumeration order within the same setup. It does
>>>>> not mean or promise, that added kernel/driver/firmware features will
>>>>> not result in different names. That is expected behavior.
>>>>> </END>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-October/034614.html
>>>>
>>>> So the names will not change when rebooting and are to be expected to
>>>> possibly change at any time.
>>>>
>>>> How is that more reliable?
>>>
>>> It's more reliable than using the kernel's names because the names
>>> won't change UNLESS there's kernel/driver/firmware change for that
>>> NIC. I doubt that these changes occur that often. Perhaps someone else
>>> knows.
>>
>> What happens more often:  That a network card is replaced with a
>> different one or that the software changes?
>>
>
>
> OK, let me try explain this again.
>
> NIC names are tricky, several posters (myself included) have laid out
> various methods and options by which it can be done. Experience shows
> that in real life the simple traditional names are easy to remember but
> prone to changing and (worse) prone to race conditions. Other methods
> change less often in reality but the names are somewhat trickier to
> remember.
>
> Opinions on these things differ; experience on these things differ and
> people's use cases on these things differ greatly. A coder working in
> this area has to decide what sort of cases they want to support, what
> problems they want to attempt to solve and what new features they want
> to introduce; then they have to write the code.
>
> Once the code is written, the coder then has to decide what nomenclature
> to use when describing the software and the effects it has. In this case
> centered around systemd a word was chosen: "reliable".
>
> Some will think it's a good name, some don't care, some will think it's
> a bad name; and all of those things are basically irrelevant because the
> name doesn't tell you much abut what the software will do. Reading the
> fine manual will tell you that. It's all a part of being human because
> our languages are imprecise, heavily overloaded and hugely redundant. So
> are our spellings. But we are stuck with it because that's the general
> emergent behaviour of a homo sapiens brain.
>
> Arguing abut this is about as nonsensical as arguing about whether "lee"
> is a good handle on a forum or not. To a pedant it's a bad name, one
> can't tell if you are male, female or if it's actually an Asian family
> name....
>
> Or one could do what most folk do, and not see a problem with 3 letters

I agree.

What I don't agree with is that unrecognisable names generally make
things easier (though they can, depending on the circumstances).