As sth...@nethelp.no wrote... > > > I agree.. and same thing goes for Ethernet drivers. I actually > > > like the way Linux always has "eth0", "eth1", ... (which we could > > > > Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this > > just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for one don't see any > > advantage in eth[0-9] style device naming. > > I can give you one example. We run a FreeBSD box here which receives > all of the traffic (port mirroring) from some Ethernet switches. On > the FreeBSD box, we run nnstat, tcpdump etc. for monitoring purposes. > > Recently I changed some of the DEC 21x4x based cards on this box to > Intel cards. Thus the interface names changed from deN to fxpN. This > meant we had to update a bunch of Perl and shell scripts. It would > have been much nicer (no need to update) if the interfaces were simply > named ethN.
Hmmm. Well I happen to like the concept of being able to tell straight away what device I'm talking to. eth# style naming does not allow that. But I can understand that other people might feel otherwise. Wilko _ ______________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Bulte email: wi...@yedi.iaf.nl |/|/ / / /( (_) Arnhem, The Netherlands WWW : http://www.tcja.nl ______________________________________________ Powered by FreeBSD __________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
