Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:07:15 +0100 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: wilko@yedi.iaf.nl Cc: archie@whistle.com, dfr@nlsystems.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come... Message-ID: <7987.917514435@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:12:18 %2B0100 (CET)" References: <199901272212.XAA03458@yedi.iaf.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. Personally, I'd also prefer to have IDE disks named daN, but that's another matter... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7987.917514435>