Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1601136 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

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

#1601136 — Re: [...] "How does the new naming scheme look like, precisely?"

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?

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web