On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:15:40 -0500 Tom Horsley <horsley1953@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:10:59 +0100 > Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > > The actual difference between the two methods is about system > > maintenance > > Yea, and when you update your system with a new and improved > biosdevname, you can find nothing working because the > "immutable" names have changed: > > http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/game/biosdevname.html > > Loads of fun for everyone! Well, everything has bugs. And you saw how badly motherboard bioses can be written, it is not easy to write something like biosdevname and have it working perfectly for everyone in its very first version. Btw, I am not trying to play an advocate for biosdevname here, but rather just trying to understand why the OP needs MAC-based naming so badly. As a side note... A distinction should always be made between design choices and bug fixing. Introduction of biosdevname is a design choice, because it has introduced some new functionality (previously unavailable). This is not the same thing as fixing a bug of some existing stuff. So the old mantra "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" does not apply in this case. Similarly for other "new and shiny" stuff, like systemd, grub2, kernel modesetting, ext4 (a while back), etc. They are all different design choices, which aim to improve functionality of the system. Linux is an evolving piece of software, like it or not. ;-) Best, :-) Marko -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
