<story><title>Eth0 no more?</title><url>http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-desktops/2011-February/003757.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>_b8r0</author><text>I can understand why people will resist this, thinking that somehow renaming eth0 to em0 or similar will break stuff, but here&apos;s the rub: It&apos;ll only break stuff that&apos;s badly written.&lt;p&gt;There&apos;s a right way to enumerate network interfaces and a wrong way (which is dependent on the language you&apos;re using for enumeration - the wrong way is assuming that eth0 is the only network device).&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that the new convention is not entirely dissimilar to how WiFi cards have worked on Linux for some time, so the only things that will break will be things that:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    a) Assume eth0 instead of enumerating devices
    b) Have a legitimate reason for using eth0 only (I can&apos;t think of one, but I wouldn&apos;t be surprised if one existed)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Eth0 no more?</title><url>http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-desktops/2011-February/003757.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>javanix</author><text>From the limitations section of the wiki page linked in the article:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Not all add-in cards have a method to expose their Linux interface name(s) to external port mapping. biosdevname may provide incorrect names for such. Discussions are ongoing on the netdev mailing list to standardize a method of exposing such mapping.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Seems like this would be kind of a deal-breaker for any wholesale move like this. I&apos;d be fairly surprised if this got any widespread adoption anytime soon.</text></comment>