I am grateful for this thread being on topic again.

Adam Borowski - 26.08.17, 20:54:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 05:19:48PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > AFAIR I fully agreed on that and then it jumped into my face that the
> > renaming wasn't necessary at all, because it is sufficient to know the MAC
> > address and ignore completely the interface name. It is just enough for
> > this to work that the tools manipulating the network interfaces can be
> > given the MAC address instead of the interface name. This opens an
> > alternative to renaming: guaranteed stable interface reference, no race
> > condition and no need for a new name space.
>
> It would mean changes to every single program that deals with network
> interfaces. With renaming, you apply this in a single place.
>
> Also, compare "wlxf81a671bcfae" with "mac=f8:1a:67:1b:cf:ae" (hint: sed
> 's/mac=/wlx/;s/://g'). I don't see any advantages for the latter, and
> nobody in this thread had any kind words for the former.

I am fine with a simple renaming with a simple numbered namespace as you
proposed. en0, en1, wl1 and so on would be fine for me. But I disable the
systemd naming scheme wherever I can cause en16millionsomething and
wlxf81a671bcfae is crap for me.

I also prefer LABELs oder UUIDs in filesystems anytime. I am a human being and
I prefer speaking names over cryptic stuff. During AmigaOS times I learned one
thing: It is important the operating system adapts to the user… not the other
way around (of course in AmigaOS you could name almost anything as you wish,
it started out with partitions, but with Roadshow TCP/IP stack also network
interfaces have names that can be changed).

Heck, I type lwn.net instead of 45.33.94.129 and thats for a reason.

Thats most of the issue I have with Systemd upstream developer behavior: They
*force* their view of the world to the user and the user has to adapt. It is
this arrogance that feels completely out of place to me. Thats the completely
wrong way to approach developing computer operating systems that are to be
used by human beings. The computers are there to serve us… not the other way
around. I am happy to have learned this during my Amiga times… the operating
system was so simple that I could tell what every file in it was for. (At one
time there may be computers that are advanced enough to carry consciousness or
even start to "feel"… and then its important to respect that… and probably
give those computers similar rights, but we are not even close to this time I
think.)

So… my plea is: Dear developersm, stop throwing complex and irritating stuff
onto the user just cause you think its better!

Thanks,
--
Martin