On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:45:07 -0600
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@???> wrote:

> * 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
>

I don't really object to re-naming a newly found ethernet card, what
concerned me was the fact it happened silently.

Rowland