At 12:54 PM 7/21/00 -0400, Donald Becker wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Dennis wrote: > >> >I expect, given your posting history, that you want Linux to be just a clone >> >of BSD, and want BSD/Sun style naming. We made the decision in 1992 that > >> No, I use BSD as an example of an OS that does usually things right, that >> doesnt lock up under load and that has consistency across drivers. So shoot >> me. What I'd like is for people to realize that LINUX is only suitable to >> penguinites... > >I was told in private email that you were just posting to create a flame >war, not for any constructive reason. No, YOU created a flame war by trying to claim that something in your driver that is clearly wrong is acceptable. Your branding of anyone that disagrees with you as simply a troublemaker is a big part of the problem. Until you guys can accept criticism and think objectively, the problems with continue. >No. I'm saying that you have a unique requirement. Your requirements can >be solved in user space. It is not a kernel, network stack, or driver >issue. Insisting that code need to be put into the kernel to change the >behavior is demanding more kernel bloat. My "requirement" is not unique in any way, unless you consider all commercial vendors using ATX MBs and more than 1 ethernet port "unique". My point, if you chose to listen, is that it doesnt have to be "solved in user space", and shouldnt be (because each hardware installation would have to have its own "solution"), and I dont believe that my pointing to another OS to illustrate my point is unusual or inappropriate. Its the best way to illustrate that a cleaner way is acheivable, since others have done it. >Most real-world machines have a single network interface. In the LAN world >it's 99% likely that it's a single Ethernet connection. We have chosen to >consistently name that connection "eth0". This has resulted in much >simplified documentation vs. the alternatives. Specially, the BSD approach >was good when there was only one or two variants of each device type. It is >*bad* in the modern world and will only get worse. the BSD naming mechanism is completely irrelevant, so why do you keep mentioning it? The problem is ONLY when 2 or more eepro100s are installed, and whether they are called foo0 or eth0 is meaningless. They are probed backwards, or named backward, whatever. The onboard controller MUST be the primary controller. You are arguing against yourself, because this problem makes docs more difficult to write and more confusing because the procedures change whenever you have different hardware in the box. lets see: 1) IF you only have one ethernet port, then plug your primary lan into port A 2) IF you have 2 ports and both are intel eepro100 compatible, then plug your primary lan into port B 3) IF you have more than 1 port and the first port in an intel eepro100 and the second port uses a different driver, then plug your primary lan into port B 4) IF you have more than 2 intel ports, we arent sure what will happen so just keep plugging into all the ports until one of them happens to work. 5) IF you know the ethernet addresses of your ports, then you can scan ifconfig to try to find the one that is port A and plug your primary lan into that. 6) If you cant figure it out, dont say anything bad on the linux list becuase you may be accused of starting a flame war What are you kidding me? Flame wars are usually started by OTHERS (not me) because i strike a nerve...dont blame me because there are so many nerves available. Dennis - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
