So Matt Domsch said:
This is why you put the damn HWADDR in each ifcfg-ethX config you terds, so they don't get swapped around after a reboot, etc.

Stupid if you ask me, the developers in Fedora-lala-land must be bored and out of ideas, so let's just change something that really wasn't an issue to begin with.

Agreed, what was wrong with either binding by MAC address... or setting a Udev rule? Obviously binding by MAC is the easiest and quickest way to accomplish that... And I believe most distro's do that by default during installs.. Supposedly Ubuntu is jumping on the bandwagon too.. Don't touch what is not broken!

sheesh!

Isn't this essentially the nature of these 'bleeding-edge' distros though? Unless they are not including experimental software/drivers in their distros they are messing things that shouldn't need to be messed with, to make it appear that something new has been added?

Seems to be that way... Gotta be a reason for FC-15...? Updated software just doesn't cut it I guess, the real thing is eventually this may get pushed into Enterprise Operations...

In that cast I feel very sorry for those who are Administering Fedora/RHEL servers. Reinventing the wheel is not whats needed.

i would never install fedora on a server ( one maybe exception - a for fun home server )

but it will be many many years before this shows up in RHEL , if it ever dose .

Yeah, I agree on both. Earliest IMO would be RHEL 7, by then who knows what has changed.

This doesn't appear to be going over well - here or on the announcement page you pointed to.

If I could offer a differing opinion: I mostly like the naming scheme idea. It would be useful to me to quickly know from a remote location which physical device a logical name refers to. I manage several servers with three four-port Intel PCIe NICs, and one four-port Broadcom onboard NIC. It's annoying to have to document logical -> physical mappings for eth0 through eth15, just so I can explain to a data center technician which port he can operate on without bringing our apps to a screeching halt.

Anyway, WRT the new Fedora naming scheme proposal, I have a different nit to pick. I don't like that they're using 1-based port numbering. Every *nix I know of uses 0-based.

pulse audio also did not go over well back in fedora 8

so who knows , time will tell.

I know, this is just confusing and inconsistent with how all other devices are named. Devices in Unix-like systems have always started at zero and counted up. It doesn't make it more intuitive because new users will question the inconsistency or expect all devices to count up from one, and experienced users are already familiar with counting up from zero.