* 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 _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng