Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!vector!chip From: chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: `uname' survey results -- bad news, it's #@!!%@# useless Message-ID: <531@vector.UUCP> Date: 1 Sep 88 01:05:35 GMT References: Reply-To: chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) Organization: Dallas Semiconductor Lines: 22 In article eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >The nodename field (-n) is about the only thing almost everyone seems to get >right, though some sites do report it empty. And uuname -l is more reliable >for that purpose (XENIXes and perhaps some other systems extract uname -n's >output from /etc/systemid rather than a kernel ID area via uname(2)). A nit: under XENIX (SCO's version anyway), uname -n does indeed use uname(2) (errrr, I mean uname(S)..blah). It's uuname -l which reads /etc/systemid. I'm not sure how many people recompile their kernal to get a name in the uname structure. (And USENET is not a good representative sample to determine this. Chances are that if you are on USENET then you have done this. If you have SysV.) It might not be a good idea to depend upon even "uname -n" for a turnkey installation package. As long as we are discussing philosophies, I really prefer Larry Wall's "dist" approach, where you base your configuration upon the specific capabilities rather than the OS flavor. -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | I've been a wizard since my childhood. Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-0486 | And I've earned some respect for my art.