On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:51:43PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: > >What I'm saying for *this* case is that a reduction in the information > >presented is a problem and for me it means that this case doesn't meet > >its goals. > > But for existing customers, the existing information was not provided in > anything remotely resembling a consistent manner. Each driver did its > own thing. For a customer/application to have depended on this kind of > information would have been utterly insane, if they wanted the > application to work with different NICs, etc.
So what? These messages are at least intended for human consumption, and the human may not even notice such inconsistencies. "Oh look, interface xyz0 flapped and now is at half-duplex, time to go kick some network staff a**!" > I have investigated, and I can provide this information without too much > pain, but I still disagree with it in principle. Then just do it. The principle behind all the outside and inside opinions stated in favor of including speed and duplicity info is quite reasonable: the stuff was there and it was useful, so why remove it (almost, if not exactly, the least astonishment principle). Nico --
