Linux is not about choice [was Re: Fedora too cutting edge?]

[Les Mikesell]

David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:00 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> But the old names were predictable; the new ones aren't - when I move a 
>> disk to a new controller/drive position, I know about it.
> 
> Uhm, no. You were just relying on a) limitations in the Linux kernel to
> probe devices in a sequential fashion (see big-iron boxes with tens of
> thousands of disks why this won't work); and b) the order of your
> controllers on the PCI bus. Trying to argue it was "predictable" when it
> was a "coincidence" is an interesting spin on reality. It's also wrong;
> there's a reason that RHL and Fedora been using LABEL= for ages.

OK, that's at least partly right but you forgot to tell me what to call 
the device when creating the label for filesystems that support it - or 
what name to use for access to the raw device for operations like image 
copies and addition/removal from raid arrays.  The underlying problem 
can't be solved at the filesystem layer.

>> What I actually would argue is that a distribution making such changes 
>> should supply tools to migrate configurations based on old conventions 
>> to the new ones.  Maybe Fedora doesn't have users with hundreds of 
>> machines and data that needs to span years of operation, but a unix-like 
>> system should be designed to make that practical.
> 
> No, Fedora is about being on the bleeding edge and creating a system
> where you don't *need* to migrate configuration files because the files
> will be correct if they are using stable identifiers for devices.

I haven't found that to be the case.  And I don't see any reason for 
today's experimental change to end up being the one that sticks.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com