| 1 |
On 12/19/2016 10:15 AM, lee wrote: |
| 2 |
> "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Similarly, the vast majority of home users have a machine with one |
| 5 |
>> ethernet port, and in the past it's always been eth0. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Since 10 years or so, the default is two ports. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Not in any of the computers I've built. Generally only high end or |
| 10 |
workstation/server boards have two ports. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
i.e. not what the typical home user would buy. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> Now the name varies in each machine depending on the motherboard |
| 16 |
>> layout; oogabooga11? foobar42? It may be static, but you don't know |
| 17 |
>> what it'll be, without first booting the machine. In a truly |
| 18 |
>> Orwellian twist, this "feature" is referred to as "Predictable" |
| 19 |
>> Network Interface Names. It only makes things easier for corporate |
| 20 |
>> machines acting as gateways/routers, with multiple ports. Again, the |
| 21 |
>> average home user is being jerked around for a corporate agenda. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Perhaps the hidden agenda was to make the names indistinguishable and |
| 24 |
> unrecognisable, forcing everyone to use copy and paste --- after at |
| 25 |
> least double-checking which port is which --- to eliminate human and |
| 26 |
> typing errors in order to get more predictable results. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Otherwise, how would using unrecognisable names for network ports make |
| 29 |
> anything easier for corporate machines? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It is even more frustrating that these so-called predictable network |
| 33 |
names actually can change on a reboot, it's happened to me more than |
| 34 |
once when multiple network cards are detected in a different order. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dan |
Archives