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

inode0 inode0 at
Sun Oct 16 02:01:16 UTC 2011

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa at> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, inode0 <inode0 at> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa at> wrote:
>>> Even Microsoft tests changes on *users*.  Of course, Fedora is sort of
>>> a beta distribution for RedHat.
>> Everyone is welcome to help test new features.
>> Users can with very little effort become contributors in this project
>> and helping with testing is one of the places where people with just
>> about any skill set can make valuable contributions.
> So, let's run this process in the imagination.  Everyone involved in
> Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname has been
> fully briefed on the changes and has their minds focused on them.
> They have not just upgraded or something and are trying to get on with
> business.
> Let's suppose that one of these lowly testers is insufficiently awed
> by the company he is keeping to say, "You know, this is really stupid.
>  Things that I have done from memory and flawlessly for years are
> totally confusing and screwed up because of your need for
> consistency."

The need is in data centers around the world, it isn't just for
someone's need for consistency in the abstract.

> What chance is there that such feedback would have any influence
> whatsoever on a "major change" already decreed from on high?  This
> discussion is pointless.  If you're going to argue endlessly about why
> changing "eth0" to "p4p1" would be a major inconvenience to almost all
> end users, there is very little point in discussing the matter.

For some users it is totally pointless and they were given a very
simple way to disable it.

Who do you think decreed this from on high? That isn't how this worked, really.


More information about the users mailing list