> > The whole point of having 'an operating system'
> > is that it provides an abstract interface userspace software can use
> > to interact with the physical components of a different computer
> > according to the functions they're supposed to be provide, regardless
> > of the way this particular computer happens to be assembled.
>
> Does anyone else agree with me that in the preceding sentence Rainer
> encapsulated the entire philosophy of people desiring simple and
> logical software? Rainer, can I quote your preceding sentence elsewhere?

Sounds more like a (rather accurate) explanation on what's the point
of an OS to me. See Windows for an implementation of this idea that
does not rely on simple and logical software, so, IMO that isn't
implicit to what you quoted.


> > Considering this, encoding details of the bus layout and current bus
> > configuration in network interface names is just profoundly stupid.
>
> I thought it was stupid for other reasons, but now that you mention it,
> yeah, naming it after the particular slot into which it's plugged in is
> stupid, and if you take the box apart and move things around, you can
> break your OS.

Couldn't agree more.