Re: [...] "How does the new naming scheme look like, precisely?"

From	poma <pomidorabelisima@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [...] "How does the new naming scheme look like, precisely?"
Date	2017-03-15 09:40 +0100
Message-ID	<tlcDo-530-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <tlcDo-530-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlcDo-530-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlcDo-530-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlcDo-530-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlcDo-530-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 14.03.2017 17:16, Tom Horsley wrote:
> And the consistent names change every single time some
> developer decides he just has to rewrite the algorithm
> to make it better, or systemd decides to engluph yet
> another component and not be backward compatible, or
> a kernel developer gets a new motherboard where the
> scheme doesn't work and his fix has the side effect
> of changing the names on thousands of existing systems, etc.
> 
> There have been at least 3 different "immutable" name
> schemes in the short time the whole concept has existed.
> 
> I finally decided to eradicate it and go back to eth0
> and friends because it was infinitely more reliable than
> having to discover yet another naming scheme in every damn
> release.
> 
> Now my only problem will be that they'll probably keep changing
> the name of the kernel option to disable it :-).
> 

This sounds quite disturbing,
can someone from the systemd and kernel campus comment here,
as Tom claims, whether these are the facts?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [...] "How does the new naming scheme look like, precisely?" poma <pomidorabelisima@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:40 +0100

csiph-web