Simon Hobson <linux@???> writes:
> Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> It seems a good summary to me.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Unfortunately, I think this is one of those areas with no right answer
> - only different levels of suckiness.
>
> Constraining "the system" to always loads drivers in a specific order,
> and hence not randomly rename interfaces at boot time is wrong.

Constraining userspace helper applications of very subordinate
importance to cooperate with the kernel even if their authors personally
disagree with this or that kernel design choice seems perfectly fine
to me: The kernel interface naming schemes relies on drivers being
initialized in probe order to be useful. Hence, it has to be done in
this way. Especially considering that there's nothing to gain by doing
it in some other way.