Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

Kevin Fenzi kevin at
Thu Oct 13 01:54:36 UTC 2011

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:45:52 -0700
Thomas Dineen <tdineen at> wrote:


>        Keep in mind that I am speaking from the users standpoint,
> where I am seeing a lot of changes that:
> a) Seriously annoy and inconvenience the user.
> b) Seem to have little logical justification or utility.
>       Maybe we need to have Forum like this one where we discuss
> and approve these changes before they are implemented?
>       For example the proponents provide a (Short) written proposal
> and justification, then interested parties are encourages to comment
> on the implications of the proposed change. Collateral damage? Who
> else will be required to make changes to what packages? How are users
> affected? Existing scripts and applications?

To some extent we have this in the Feature process. 

For example, the network biosdevname feature is outlined at
including rationale and how to easily disable it, and other feature

There's no way every change could be proposed and brought up on this
list for scrutiny however, there's just no way it could handle the
volume, even if all developers working on anything in Linux knew to
discuss their development here. 

You're welcome to look over the F16 features for any you want to chime
in on...

Otherwise I can only suggest you get involved in areas you are
concerned with the development of. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the users mailing list