On 2017-08-24 at 12:40, David Wright wrote: > On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 12:02:11 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
>> On 2017-08-24 at 11:43, David Wright wrote: >>> There are plenty of ways that you, or Debian, can set a default. >>> But it surprises me that so many people grumble about this >>> change. The history of computing is littered with statements like >>> "virtually every computer has exactly one or two NICs". >> >> The thing is, currently that statement[1] *is* correct, so >> *currently* the default should be suited for that configuration. >> >> If things ever do reach a point where that is no longer the common >> case, it would then become appropriate to propose changing the >> default to one suited for that more-complex configuration. >> >> But we are not yet there, or indeed anywhere close to there, so >> that should not yet be the default. > > By that argument, you wait until lots of people have problems before > you change the default to accomodate them, instead of thinking > ahead. Well, yes - or at least until lots of people are *about to* have problems pretty soon, unless the default is changed first. That is at least preferable to *causing* lots of people to have problems (or at least experience additional inconvenience) by changing the default too far in advance. > If you want a simpler default, can you not follow the instructions > and give yourself one. Er... what? A default is "what you get if you don't take steps to get something else". If you have to take steps to achieve a given configuration, by definition that configuration is not the default. Thus, since the "old" naming scheme here no longer comes as the default (for new installs, et cetera), I cannot make it the default. I can certainly make local changes to get a non-default configuration, but that does not make that configuration the default. > For people upgrading, Debian ensured that there would not be an > unexpected change; the older methods prevail¹. Missing footnote? >>> This list is full of postings about the complex DNS system. But >>> how long did /etc/hosts last? >> >> It's still there and still in use, albeit not as a primary source, >> last I checked... > > It's the *only* source here for such as 192.168.1.13 wasp but I was > assuming you'd understand I was talking about non-local hosts on the > Internet. Just offhand, I don't think I even remember a time when that file was used (outside of special one-off cases) for such hosts. I also don't remember encountering such a special one-off case in the past several years to a decade, at least, although I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn they still crop up. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
