* On 2016 06 Nov 10:21 -0600, Rowland Penny wrote:

> Why, oh why, did systemd-udevd rename eth0 to eth1 ????????

As much as I dislike SD, as other have also mentioned, it is not
directly to blame in this case. This bit me long ago as well, long
before SD was a gleam in LP's eye.

After I thought about it some, there is a certain logic to udev's
behavior but it would seem to make more sense if the network adapter is
on a hot-pluggable interface (PCMCIA, USB, etc.), or is in addition to
the adapter already assigned to eth0 on a PCI bus. The behavior of
assigning eth1 to a new adapter on a PCI bus where the old adapter no
longer is present always struck me as a more Windows way of doing things
where a full installation should be done rather than moving a hard drive
or copying an existing partition to a new drive or simply swapping a
main board as is common among Linux users. I guess this should have
been the warning shot that indicated that Linux was no longer being
developed by/for the hobbyist/DIYer.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us