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

[lee]

Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes:

> On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:52:54 +0100, lee wrote:
>
>> >> I only know what the names are when I can look them up when the
>> >> computer is running.  I don't call that "predictable".
>
> That's because you are using a different definition of predictable from
> that intended.

I'm not using a definition but understanding.  If you are about
definitions, then you should invent a new word by using the intended
definition and call the unrecognisable names by your new word.

>> > If they are constructed according to specific rules, they are
>> > predictable, by definition.
>>
>> You're overlooking that you need to know exactly, in advance, what the
>> rules are applied to, and all the rules, for having a chance that your
>> prediction turns out to be correct.
>
> So how do you write udev rules to rename ports without knowing the
> specifics of the hardware?

I don't.

> How do you know which port will be eth0 and which will be eth1 the first
> time you boot if you use no renaming?

I don't, I only know that they will be called eth0 and eth1.  With
unrecognisable names, I don't know anything.

> I really don't see your objection to a setting that, while a default, is
> trivial to change, even before you boot the installed distro for the
> first time. It is clearly useful to others, otherwise they would not have
> invested time and effort in implementing. If, in doing so, they had ruled
> out all alternatives, you would have a point. Those alternative are still
> there, so all you are doing is whining.

That's the usual method of calling something "whining" when someone has
run out of arguments and/or doesn't understand what someone else is
saying.

> No one has taken away your choice to do things how you see fit, why do
> you want to do the same for others.
>
> The choices are there, why not just use the one you want and leave others
> to use what they want.

Where did I say that anyone must use particular names for their network
interfaces?

It's the other way round in that the unrecognisable names have been
forced upon everyone because they were made the default.  You can either
use them or change them, and both requires additional work.  Why wasn't
the extra work forced upon those who want to use the unrecognisable
names?