[systemd-devel] Network Interface Names: solution for a desktop OS

[Xen]

Reindl Harald schreef op 12-04-16 20:54:

>> Then do it yourself.
> 
> what?

Design or propose something better.

Maybe you thought the original system was better, I guess you mentioned
something like that.


> i am just a user like you but with technical understanding, the point is
> that you talk about things which you don't gasp in a way like you are
> the king

I don't see anybody else taking up the ball.

And the king wouldn't do this himself, he would assign someone to do it
for him. My mind is not utterly perfect and I often cannot describe
myself very well.

Maybe you think I am eloquent, currently, I am not.

I just do my best in what you could describe as some kind of uphill
battle, right.

Let me just say this, and I think you can agree:

Many times in life we are shoved off by people who have a superior
technical understanding, which means we cannot stand up to them. But we
still feel that the decisions they make are bullshit.

This can be as simple as a monitor that makes noise when in standby
(coilwhine or something similar) and the salesman says "that's what all
devices do, that's just a part of it".

We feel that an injustice is being done to us, but we don't have all the
knowledge to prove it. People with more knowledge can throw us in the
woods, and hide information from us what would serve us. Because they
have an agenda and do not want to accept your objections or demands.

Yes what I am doing is simply making a demand of some kind, and I guess
you know that.

I mean you are not unsympathetic to it, but I just cannot do anything
well these days (my mind is too much fucked up) and this is not just here.

The way these things go is that you would invite the technically
knowledgeable people to prove that the decisions they've made are sound.
Like Andrei Borzenkov said

"You need to explain why your new naming scheme is better than that."

And this is reasonably accurate you know. It doesn't work here because
the person making a complaint does have to justify it.

But after a complaint has been justified the people responsible for the
system can also be invited to demonstrate why their system is really
necessary.

However this is not really happening here. So suddenly I am the one that
needs to have all the knowledge.

You know what it's like being governed by a technocracy. Most economical
decisions in government are also made by politians who convince the
populance of the necessity of their choices but meanwhile they do not
reveal who is really pulling their strings and what interests they are
really serving.

It's the same here: the designers and important people in this industry
work for some large corporations or work for vendors that supply to them.

I think you will agree that what we see in this point in time is a
weighing of interests and the large businesses win out. Right.

And no matter my lack of technical knowhow: I can see this happening.

>> Thunderbolt is a largely irrelevant technology from what it seems.
> 
> says who?

You ask why it is relevant to this topic. I was just explaining why I
don't have this knowledge.

As a random computer user, it is impossible that I would have in-depth
knowledge about e.g. Thunderbolt or the way it is presented on the (PCI)
bus.

I explain why this technology is so far removed from me that I cannot
possibly have either an interest, or a way to know all about it.

So I hope I can be excused I do not know everything before saying something.


>> Recent years have seen a proliferation of new technologies but most
>> people don't even use them:
>>
>> * DisplayPort, the vast majority of computer users may not ever have
>> used it.
> 
> tell that the 6 workstations i am responsible for

I am saying this to illustrate that the current concerns may not be
concerns of the vast majority of users.

The 6 workstations you are responsible for may not represent the
majority, and you know that.

People often talk about the disconnect between politicians and ordinary
people. Well, what we see today.

Do you not think it can be described as a disconnect between designers
and actual users?

So I will tell your 6 workstations that the vast majority of computer
users may not ever have used DisplayPort.

Your workstations will say, "Well, but we are bit higher end machines.
Many people at home buy cheaper monitors that do not have DisplayPort.
We may reflect the minority on a global scale. It's not that our
technology is not widely used, but in the lower range and on smaller
size monitors, it is true that a displayport connector is often not
found. It is also true that displayport (I think) is mainly used for the
higher resolutions it supports, which may not be relevant for smaller
screens. DisplayPort is currently present on many motherboards and even
laptops, but I suspect there is indeed a large share of users who have
never come into contact with it. For instance, as an illustration...."

MSI produced an nVidia GTX 960 card with 3x DisplayPort.

They apparently must have realized the marketing problem for this,
because on their newer model they have replaced the 3x DP with an extra
DVI port.

This is the 3x DP model:

https://www.msi.com/Graphics-card/GTX-960-2GD5T-OC.html#hero-overview

Here is the newer model:

https://www.msi.com/Graphics-card/GTX-960-2GD5T-OCV2.html#hero-overview

This itself is interesting, isn't it? I'm just writing this because I
like the subject ;-) (I love those cards).

This coincides with their equivalent AMD Radeon R9 380 model:

https://www.msi.com/Graphics-card/R9-380-4GD5T-OC.html#hero-overview

We are already talking ~200 euro gaming cards, which by no means can be
considered budget. However some people do consider it budget, but that
also sheds light on the issue here.

Now their "less budget" cards do still have 3x DP.

https://www.msi.com/Graphics-card/GTX-960-GAMING-4G.html#hero-overview

They are meant for gamers having a row of high resolution monitors. The
types that game on three screens. 3 high resolution DP screens however
are not that cheap and indicate why the price of the graphics card comes
into play.

So I have told your 6 workstations and they gave modest answers ;-).

They do not consider themselves better than the rest of the world, and
they recognise that there may be a split between two levels of people,
not extremely dissimilar from DVD vs Bluray.

Of course why I consider this relevant is because this detachment
between what designers do and how well they relate to "ordinary users"
is at the core of this issue.

You know that's why I have said these things, come on.




Here is the issue from my PoV:



/The designers of this biosdev scheme (and systemd in general) do not
actually understand the concerns of the majority of people, because they
relate mostly to tech people and people working in this business for a
living, that are more likely to be dealing with corporate clients rather
than the vast masses of people using linux systems./


What I am saying is that the issue here falls inside the scope of
"politicians don't understand the people".

"The man on the street is not understood".

"Decisions are made that affect the common man, but the common man has
no say in it".

You know very well that this is the issue and why you dislike the scheme
as well (I think).



>> * USB 3.0, I have two cases that have a front USB 3.0 port, while having
>> motherboards that do not support them (I'm using eSATA, it is enough for
>> me) - and another motherboard with 3.0 at the back but no support for a
>> connector (I mean onboard).
> 
> it does not matter what is enough for you

No, but it does matter whether or not I represent some segment of users
that feel the same yet that are not taken for consideration, or whose
needs are not taken for consideration.

The whole issue with biosdev from my PoV is that it benefits few while
causing many to suffer, becaus the many are not represented on this
board, but the few are.

>> When I look back at my parents, they have not even used a computer. I
>> grew up with the technology of the 80s / 90s. Now people are going crazy
>> about 4k displays. My mother uses less than a 37" display. I actually
>> mean 37cm. For a television, yes that small.
> 
> sad enough that you have no self-expierience
> as i started prohramming i was 9 years old on a C64
> frankly i used that thing until 1999

See here is where your misappreciation shows itself, because I started
programming when I was 8 (or 9) on an MSX :P. We can shake hands :).

I used it until ~1992 when my father bought me a IBM PS/2 for school,
and my uncle wanted the MSX back.

Irrelevant here, yes, but it was meant to illustrate that we may very
well be talking about a disconnect between people in our society with
"runaway technology" in which a large group of users never come into
contact with the technology that influences the decisions of the
designers of the systems they DO have to deal with.

And now they are asked to sacrifice their pleasure for the sake of a
select few that are in the position to utilize and need added and extra
technology that fucks up their systems. We, the masses, are made to
suffer for the pleasures of a select few that can be considered the
noveau riche.

We now have a broken technology called biosdev(names) that sacrifices
the usability of older systems in order to cater to clients that now
want their new and sullen technology to function well in spite of all
kinds of issues it creates.

Yes, we do see a weighing of interests here, and the older people lose
out. The older technology uses out. The majority of systems lose out.
You have seen it yourself, probably.


>> There are people in the world that cannot afford food, but we are
>> selling 4k displays that no one needs, and technology that goes with it
>> to support that data that, in the end, therefore, no one needs either.
> 
> but what has this to do with the topic?

Disconnect between groups of users and a misrepresentation of less-vocal
users in technology groups or technology design teams or institutions in
which their voices are not heard.

A majority of users relying on older technology who do not need all the
new shit but who are made to suffer for it.

>> Huge data, sure, it can use the technology, and maybe that is your
>> clientele. But that also makes it clear that this is not about regular
>> users, but probably only about server parks.
> 
> but what has this to do with the topic?

See above.

>> So Thunderbolt can connect PCIe prior to booting, causing it to obtain a
>> number on the PCI bus? See, I don't know the exact functioning of the
>> technology from reading that Wikipedia page (and I did, thank you).
>>
>> If it does obtain a number on the PCI bus, it means disconnecting it
>> might do what? Have these people been honest about what actually happens?
>>
>> For the most part, the more I learn the more I am astounded as to how
>> bad this technology is.
> 
> but what has this to do with the topic?

Now you're being silly. Pasted your line a bit too many times.


>> Well my apologies for not having in-depth knowledge about these issues.
> 
> DO YOUR HOMEWORK about topics you start to talk about like you are the king

The king does not talk this way. The king however might go down to the
street to inquire with real people (like you and me) how we feel about a
certain situation.

Things the systemd people have obviously never done.


>> But I was led to believe biosdev led to stability and I based my
>> arguments on that, but it is not even stable in my own system.
>>
>> We were talking specifically about networking here.
>>
>> I do not know how many hotpluggable devices there are apart from USB,
>> I'm sorry.
> 
> DO YOUR HOMEWORK about topics you start to talk about like you are the king

You say you have done your homework, but you are apparently letting it
go to waste.

Solve the issues in my words if you must. If you are so knowledgeable
why not use it. Why not use your knowledge to correct my "mistakes"
instead of using it (like others) to avoid having to deal with the issue?

By mistakes I mean gaps in my knowledge.

Let's design something better or at least reveal that the reasons people
have used for their decisions are not fair with regards to the masses
that do not benefit from this?

The only thing I really want to be known is that the reasons for this
specific result we have ended up with is not technical, it is political.

I know /ENOUGH/ about technology to perceive when something is bullshit.

The system we have now is just crap. What does that have to do with the
topic.? Everything?.

People are not telling the truth here.

We have ended up with this situation because some people are considered
more important than other people.

>> It appears the standard provisions for "BCMA", "CCW" and a few other
>> things including "hotplug slot index number".
>>
>> The USB hardware you mention is not going to appear out of nowhere.
>>
>> Stay focussed here.
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> the point is that devices can appear out of nowehere at any point in time

The sun can also suddenly explode taking all human life with it, but we
do not really plan for that either.

And most people are also not worried about being struck by lightning
while going out in a thunderstorm if there are enough high places nearby.

Be realistic here.

You could just as easily fix the location of devices that have already
been found, at least providing for current-runtime-stability for
everything just like that.

And it is not realistic to assume that some hardware (onboard) NIC is
not going to respond for hours and you are not going to be concerned
about that, but you are going to be concerned about the resulting
numbering scheme.

That is to say: you could define a moment (prior to starting up
networking) where you will decide to fix the current list.

Unless there are Thunderbolt devices in the way, and supposing you would
give USB its own list (and naming scheme) this would *always* with
pretty much a 100% guarantee fix a standard list of already present
devices that obtain a numbering scheme that is not going to change ever.

It will change if you add new networking hardware, but it will not
change if you add or remove non-networking hardware.

If hot-pluggable devices change this order you may have an issue. Many
hotplug technologies the way you say (or someone else) are not
distinguishable from "internal" devices (think eSata). (I THINK). But in
that case you might (currently) have a problem anyway.

So: if you can hotplug ethernet devices (even prior to booting) that are
going to supersede or intermingle with the biosdev scheme sitting in the
same tree (e.g. enp3s0) then you will have an issue but I have this
issue today (in a lesser extent because they are not hotplug).

If you can guarantee that these devices do not appear on the same bus
with the same numbers, being indistinguishable, then you have a
fail-safe system.

If you cannot guarantee this, then you are currently fucked anyway
(concerning the fact that my PCI bus is getting renumbered).

Greg called this something I needed to blame my manufacturer for.

That is not an acceptable excuse right.


>> SATA and SAS are not networking technologies.
> 
> how does that matter when you hang yourself on PCI numbers?

I do not. Biosdev does.

My scheme would not care about actual numbers, because it only picks the
ones related to networking and then condenses them into a [0...n]
sequence. I think my idea is still sound.

I never thought it was not sound. People holding back information just
make it appear to be.

>> Don't hold me responsible for the mess you (or other people) have created
> 
> i created nothing and just a user like yourself, i am just annyoed that
> somebody who even states that he has no deeper knowledge has such a
> large mouth

There is this statement that

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I was not saying that you designed this. I was just asking for help.