Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: `uname' survey results -- bad news, it's #@!!%@# useless Message-ID: <1988Sep7.200539.6814@ateng.uucp> Date: 8 Sep 88 00:05:39 GMT References: <531@vector.UUCP> <7027@ki4pv.uucp> Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 19 According to tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews): >In article <531@vector.UUCP>, chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >> A nit: under XENIX (SCO's version anyway), uname -n does indeed use >> uname(2) (errrr, I mean uname(S)..blah). > >Most of the time, the this yields a bunch of NUL (zero) bytes for the >system name, making it possible for a clever program to know to try >for /etc/systemid (kernel not patched or re-built). This is not the best solution. If the Xenix kernel has a nodename, but the sysadmin uses /etc/uuinstall or otherwise changes /etc/systemid, then uucp will use the latter, ignoring uname(S). All uucp-aware Xenix programs should imitate this behavior. Or just use "uuname -l", of course. :-) -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. The urgent leaves no time for the important.