| 1 |
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:52:54 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> I only know what the names are when I can look them up when the |
| 4 |
> >> computer is running. I don't call that "predictable". |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That's because you are using a different definition of predictable from |
| 7 |
that intended. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > If they are constructed according to specific rules, they are |
| 11 |
> > predictable, by definition. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You're overlooking that you need to know exactly, in advance, what the |
| 14 |
> rules are applied to, and all the rules, for having a chance that your |
| 15 |
> prediction turns out to be correct. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So how do you write udev rules to rename ports without knowing the |
| 18 |
specifics of the hardware? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
How do you know which port will be eth0 and which will be eth1 the first |
| 21 |
time you boot if you use no renaming? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I really don't see your objection to a setting that, while a default, is |
| 24 |
trivial to change, even before you boot the installed distro for the |
| 25 |
first time. It is clearly useful to others, otherwise they would not have |
| 26 |
invested time and effort in implementing. If, in doing so, they had ruled |
| 27 |
out all alternatives, you would have a point. Those alternative are still |
| 28 |
there, so all you are doing is whining. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No one has taken away your choice to do things how you see fit, why do |
| 31 |
you want to do the same for others. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The choices are there, why not just use the one you want and leave others |
| 34 |
to use what they want. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full |
| 41 |
house and four people died. |
Archives