Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:17:30 EDT mike ledoux said: Eh, if this really is a new version of GNU sh-utils, I'm sure they wouldn't go to that trouble. Much simpler to just have the system report itself as GNU/`uname -s`. :) Yeah, but even rms has conceded that a Solaris system with the GNU utilities added to it isn't and shouldn't be referred to as GNU/Solaris :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: 19 Aug 2002 02:00:50 EDT Paul Iadonisi said: I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o' functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out 'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -a' or 'lsb_release -as' you can get all the distribution specific information you'll probably ever need. Outstanding Of course, you need to install the lsb-release package for that, but that's only an apt-get install away :) Now we could actually make uname useful by having it call lsb_release in configure and setting that string appropriately :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:15:36AM -0400, mike ledoux wrote: I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat? I've yet to find a reliable method. /etc/issue will tell you. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 11:15am, mike ledoux wrote: I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat? I've yet to find a reliable method. Red Hat has a file called /etc/redhat-release. Debian has a file called /etc/debian_release (or something close to that; I don't have a Debian system to check). Other distros do similar things. Of course, this leads to an identification algorithm which consists of a giant, messy switch/case structure. Ugly, but often better than nothing. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, mike ledoux wrote: I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat? I've yet to find a reliable method. cat /etc/redhat-release. if it doesn't work, you're not using redhat. :) -- TARogue (Linux user number 234357) When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship. -- Harry Truman ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
Likewise, SuSE has a file, /etc/SuSE-release I'm not sure, but this might be part of LSB. On 19 Aug 2002 at 11:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Red Hat has a file called /etc/redhat-release. Debian has a file called /etc/debian_release (or something close to that; I don't have a Debian system to check). Other distros do similar things. Of course, this leads to an identification algorithm which consists of a giant, messy switch/case structure. Ugly, but often better than nothing. -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 12:09pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, if I have a RH 6.2 system, I might well upgrade the sh-utils package to that which shipped with 7.3. Figuring out which distro flavor you are on (Red Hat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, etc.) is, I think, the most we can ask for. When you start asking about the release of the distro you are on, things get rather fuzzy. Even if you stay within Red Hat Linux 6.2, how do you clarify the differences between RHL 6.2 with no optional packages and RHL 6.2 with everything? How do you tell the difference between RHL 6.2 stock and RHL 6.2 with all the errata updates installed? Once you've got the distribution question answered, the rest should really be handled by whatever dependency management mechanisms are in place for that distribution. For example, first determine you are on some release of RHL, and then use RPM to depend on initscripts or glibc or whatever. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: For example, if I have a RH 6.2 system, I might well upgrade the sh-utils package to that which shipped with 7.3. Does uname now report that I'm using 7.3 or 6.2? How does it determine this? If it relies upon the lsb_release package, how does this determine which release I'm on? Does it rely upon /etc/redhat_release? What if this is not correct. This is not an easy problem to solve :( I disagree. The solution is to provide a package specific to each distribution. Of course, your system admin has to pay attention... It would need to be named differently on each release so that it could not be inadvertently upgraded... Most distributions already do provide such a package. Of course, the sysadmin can always remove it... =8^) - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9YR5rdjdlQoHP510RAnEnAJ0VYc/G9SqEgdALkvzMTr2fNDvn5gCfZP3X cSknsb8r2QsWJG1gUW//UOM= =1OCu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
How about using GCC? $ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112) On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:26, Michael O'Donnell wrote: I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat? I've yet to find a reliable method. Wouldn't the presence of (some combination of) the various apt-related directories be a reliable sign that you had a Debian box? Like, say, /etc/apt, /var/cache/apt and /var/lib/apt. Bonus points for /etc/debian_version... I don't know much about RedHat but I'd assume the corresponding RPM stuff could serve the same purpose. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: 19 Aug 2002 13:50:17 EDT Jeff Macdonald said: How about using GCC? $ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112) H, interesting. However, it's not reliable, since I've seen many, many systems without gcc on them (like anything on a DMZ). -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
Ok, how about /proc/version? [jeff@server1 jeff]$ more /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot) [jeff@server1 jeff]$ more /proc/version Linux version 2.2.17-14.8RS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)) #1 Fri Apr 13 01:58:55 CDT 2001 [jeff@server1 jeff]$ uname -a Linux server1.virtualbuilder.com 2.2.17-14.8RS #1 Fri Apr 13 01:58:55 CDT 2001 i586 unknown [jeff@server1 jeff]$ and [parser@jmacdonald-work mail-parser]$ more /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla) [parser@jmacdonald-work mail-parser]$ more /proc/version Linux version 2.4.18-4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110)) #1 Thu May 2 18:47:38 EDT 2002 [parser@jmacdonald-work mail-parser]$ uname -a Linux jmacdonald-work.e-dialog.com 2.4.18-4 #1 Thu May 2 18:47:38 EDT 2002 i686 unknown Still a chore to parse. On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 13:50, Jeff Macdonald wrote: How about using GCC? $ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112) On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:26, Michael O'Donnell wrote: I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat? I've yet to find a reliable method. Wouldn't the presence of (some combination of) the various apt-related directories be a reliable sign that you had a Debian box? Like, say, /etc/apt, /var/cache/apt and /var/lib/apt. Bonus points for /etc/debian_version... I don't know much about RedHat but I'd assume the corresponding RPM stuff could serve the same purpose. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:26:12PM -0400, Derek D. Martin wrote: At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly: Which most security-concious admins still remove or zero as a matter of course. Why tell the net-at-large what holes to look for? Uhm...how can you tell the contents of /etc/issue from the net? Telnet to the machine would be one way (assuming you can). But you seem to be assuming that your attacker will not be on your network. 70% or more of reported computer crime is done from the inside, according to the FBI. I concur with Ben and Mike. Said so in a post that I managed to munge my from: address... If the attacker is local, then they probably already know what the distro and revision are, or can quickly find out without resorting to looking at /etc/issue. The CDs labeled Debian and RedHat 7.3 on my desk are pretty good indicators. Maybe I should store them in a safe? That Solaris 8 box should probably go too. This is a really strange discussion. You (collectively) want to know what kind of distro you're running, but the tools you've been given are security holes because they give the exact information you're looking for! Note that at least on newer Linux systems, there's also an /etc/issue.net, which is what you see if you telnet to a machine. Some older Unix systems, IIRC, use /etc/issue for both purposes. I remember writing about issue.net on Linux almost 5 years ago. Solaris doesn't use issue. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:30:30 EDT Mark Komarinski said: This is a really strange discussion. You (collectively) want to know what kind of distro you're running, but the tools you've been given are security holes because they give the exact information you're looking for! Exactly! And don't tell anyone either! ;) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly: I disagree. The solution is to provide a package specific to each distribution. Of course, your system admin has to pay attention... It would need to be named differently on each release so that it could not be inadvertently upgraded... I disagree. The solution is to fix uname to output the information it claims to provide with the -s and -r switches: the operating system name and release. On a Red Hat 7.3 system, that should be Red Hat Linux and 7.3, *not* Linux and 2.4.18-5smp. I disagree. :) The OS is the kernel. This isn't really any different from the commercial world -- when the kernel is updated, often the output of uname -r and uname -v changes. It's a less obvious thing, because we're accustomed to the name of the kernel being the same as the overall product, and rarely care what the release and version are. In general in the commercial world, they don't care often enough for it to matter. And we don't have 30 different vendors shipping systems based on the Solaris kernel... Most distributions already do provide such a package. Of course, the sysadmin can always remove it... =8^) The distribution might provide such a package, but you need to already know which distribution you're running on to know where to look for it, since it isn't the same from one distro to another. This is irrelevant. My point was that the distributions can customize the new fields of the uname command based on what distribution-specific package was installed. This at least will provide a uniform interface for determining what the base installed distribution is. The alternative is to hard-code the value, and as has already been established, it would be very easy to install the wrong sh-utils package for your distribution. It's true that the distribution-specific package *could* also be wrong, but there's never any reason for it to be updated, except for the case of upgrading the entire distribution. It's unfortunate that the term operating system has come to be used to mean the operating system, and all the application software our vendor has decided to ship with it out of laziness. This has caused a number of problems. This is one of them. Another is Microsoft saying that there's no limit to the software that they can/should be able to make part of the operating system. Another is rms and GNU/Linux. We should prefer a different term to refer to the software distributed with an operating system. Maybe something like operating environment (actually I think I've seen this used before). But I suppose it doesn't matter, since it's unlikely to catch on amongst the masses who are asses, as we have already seen with attempts to distinguish things like kilobytes from 1000 bytes, or hacker from cracker, or any number of other things. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9YTJYdjdlQoHP510RAtPeAJ9j99zP09i96zIjVjyKXWyaqbuREwCbBoG5 chSTFoGpUcVwtd6VEQrbc3w= =Q5Ri -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly: On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:26:12PM -0400, Derek D. Martin wrote: At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly: Which most security-concious admins still remove or zero as a matter of course. Why tell the net-at-large what holes to look for? Uhm...how can you tell the contents of /etc/issue from the net? Telnet to the machine would be one way (assuming you can). But you seem to be assuming that your attacker will not be on your network. 70% or more of reported computer crime is done from the inside, according to the FBI. I concur with Ben and Mike. Said so in a post that I managed to munge my from: address... If the attacker is local, then they probably already know what the distro and revision are, or can quickly find out without resorting to looking at /etc/issue. Not if they don't have an account on the machine... The CDs labeled Debian and RedHat 7.3 on my desk are pretty good indicators. Maybe I should store them in a safe? That Solaris 8 box should probably go too. I've never worked in a place where the machines were homogenious. And yes, you should keep your media locked up. For other reasons than this... This is a really strange discussion. You (collectively) want to know what kind of distro you're running, but the tools you've been given are security holes because they give the exact information you're looking for! No. We have no tools that will reliably tell only authenticated users (who we must assume, for the purposes of this discussion, have legitimate authorized access to they system), what the distribution is. Running a command to identify a system on a system you have access to is not a security hole; even if you're an attacker. Because if you can do this, you've already gained access to the system. At such a point, it is always possible to determine what operating system the machine is running, though the means by which this is accomplished are not necessarily simple and/or convenient. Note that at least on newer Linux systems, there's also an /etc/issue.net, which is what you see if you telnet to a machine. Some older Unix systems, IIRC, use /etc/issue for both purposes. I remember writing about issue.net on Linux almost 5 years ago. Solaris doesn't use issue. K. Hard to keep those kinds of details straight. Easiest to look at a running system, of which I have none that are not recent Linux systems, save one recent HP-UX system... - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9YTQodjdlQoHP510RAg68AKCY2mpvWhD6lp9/a5ouR7BqMplXDwCfU+Ts PQ3P12csEh3rYMvmWNISb2c= =k8Ob -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote: snip Add to that the fact that Red Hat's latest beta, Limbo2 ... snip I tried to go look at, maybe download, the new beta but all I got were empty directories. I don't suppose you have some .iso's or maybe even actual cd's we (actually I) could borrow? :) P.S. - RedHat is LSB certified! Yay! http://www.freestandards.org/news.php?id=35 -- TARogue (Linux user number 234357) As you and I both know, the software may be free, but the beer isn't. --Jon maddog Hall ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In a way, this is a good thing. However it will annoy me to no end if the different distributions do not customize this field to reflect the distribution in use. Or, if the customize for each release such that a generic shell script fails to be able to recognize future releases. Imagine if 'uname -o' on different Red Hat systems reported: fisher limbo lorax mustang pensacola piglet pinstripe rembrandt starbuck thunderbird wolverine at different times? And I fear that this is what will happen. RH will place the release name or number in that field, and not mention RedHat. Debian is going with GNU/Linux (for now), but what if they decided to go the same route, such that different systems could report: slink potato woody sarge sid Could happen, and I'd find that quite annoying. I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o' functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out 'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -a' or 'lsb_release -as' you can get all the distribution specific information you'll probably ever need. va:iadonisi:1297) lsb_release -d Description:Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla) va:iadonisi:1298) lsb_release -a LSB Version:1.2.0 Distributor ID: RedHat Description:Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla) Release:7.3 Codename: Valhalla va:iadonisi:1299) lsb_release -as 1.2.0 RedHat Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla) 7.3 Valhalla -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Paul Iadonisi hath spake thusly: I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o' functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out 'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -a' or 'lsb_release -as' you can get all the distribution specific information you'll probably ever need. [ddm@mercury sw_wavs] $ lsb_release bash: lsb_release: command not found :( - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9YIufdjdlQoHP510RAk6eAKCRMLeaEhkNhWKkknkDx/qDQ990yQCeMyw4 YUQgHAMUnYp8qDJznD8/S4s= =8X/W -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 14:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Here's a radical idea: Get the source for the package and see where the hell it gets all these identification strings in the first place. :) Very radical. Which is what I've just done. The -o option causes the (preprocessor) value of HOST_OPERATING_SYSTEM to be printed out. This value is defined as $utils_cv_host_operating_system in the configure script (it gets appended to confdefs.h, I think unconditionally). *This* value gets set in m4/host-os.m4 and appears to be based on host_os which I think is set according to the guessed host os (or the --host option given to configure). There is a case statement that has a list of about 35 or 40 possibilities. If the host_os is 'linux*' the value chosen is GNU/Linux. There is a heuristic at the bottom that defaults to just uppercasing the first character of the host_os. There's not much available in the way of customizing it (short of applying a patch to hard code something in place of GNU/Linux. Add to that the fact that Red Hat's latest beta, Limbo2 (which does ship with sh-utlis 2.0.12), returns GNU/Linux from the -o option and add to that the fact that it's probably only Linux based OSes that ship with GNU sh-utils, and I'd have to agree that this is a pretty useless feature. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
You seem to have missed the same point Gerry did: Yeah, I guess I did, BUT, SuSE has *NOT* issued an 'official' RPM to update the related packages, either, so what I gave you is what SuSE has out there _right_now_. If it's not the particular version of 'uname' that you were hoping for, then you'd be SOL anyway. To make matters worse, the reported version of 'uname' is 2.0, so it's all the more difficult to conditionalize the behaviour of your script, since it's virtually impossible to tell, explicitly, what version of 'uname' is in use on a given system. Especially if someone has compiled it for a non-Linux system like True64 or Solaris. I'd be interested in knowing if the default string is simply unknown or something else. Ummm, you're getting into very muddy waters here, because you could be asking if a Tru64[tm] user should try to compile GNU's implementation of 'uname' or use the 'uname' that comes with Tru64 UNIX, which I am 99% sure is NOT something from GNU. I don't have a Tru64 UNIX system running here at home, but IIRC, their implementation has a number of additional and/or different features to accommodate the Alpha architecture and other parameters. Perhaps one of my former cohorts in ZK3 could take a peek at the Tru64 man page and enlighten us. :-) I don't have any insight into what Solaris, or for that matter, the various open-source *BSD implementations, do, either. I suspect that they may have rolled their own, to meet their specific needs, independent of the FSF. Just my 20 millidollars' worth, Bayard ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
that sh-utils 2.0.12 is out. Debian is the only distribution which has it right now that I know of (and only in Sid AFAIK). The testing distribution (AKA sarge) has 2.0.12 also. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
As mwl pointed out, it's very likely that this field is a customized field which needs to be customized by each distribution/OS maintainer to report whatever they want it to, or, it will display a default string for this field. Yeah, I certainly agree with that and am rather astonished to find that SuSE, for example, did NOT do this - a rather golden opportunity for self-aggrandization and probably very simple to do. I know that Tru64 used the original OSF code as a basis but had to do some tweaks (for 64-bit compatibility because of the way some of the data fields were aligned, etc.) and to get the actual info needed. But for the various Linux distros, the changes should be much simpler. Someone else wondered about the future. Well, perhaps as a result of this, the Unified Linux or whatever that new distro that SuSE and TurboLinux and the others are combining and concocting will perhaps think to do something useful. We can only hope... Bayard ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: stallman rant mode=on FWIW, I agree with you, Paul. But, I'd aleo like to gently remind you that you prolly can get your hands on the sources and edit them appropriately :-). Depending on what distro you have, you might want to check its history to see what version of util-linux stuff you have installed. Yes, I know Paul's running Debian, but please bear with me - I am NOT trying to start another Distribution debate, merely point out something for those who might not be aware of it. Red Hat had/has a marvelous habit of splitting the components of util-linux into two or more different RPMs. My SuSE 7.3 system runs util-linux-2.11i-10 and my SuSE 8.0 system runs util-linux-2.11n-75. There have been no updates to either package, at least on SuSE's support web page, so either that's the latest, or anything later than what was shipped with each release is good enough that there have been no earth-shattering security or functional problems to warrant an update. Salving Stallman's ego hardly qualifies, IMNSHO. On both systems: # uname --version uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0 Written by David MacKenzie. Copyright (C) 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. HTH, Bayard ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: Now, last I checked, Stallman wanted to call the entire system GNU/Linux because so much of the environment is built upon GNU software. However, in the context of 'uname' would operating system also refer to the kernel, and therefore should be identified as just 'Linux'? Which would also make it redundant with --kernel-name (-s), IMO. While I very much agree with you, I'm a bit surprised to hear you argue this. The GNU Project seems to be giving you what you've always wanted: a way for uname to identify what distribution you're using, distinct from the version of the kernel. In a way, this is a good thing. However it will annoy me to no end if the different distributions do not customize this field to reflect the distribution in use. For those with RH 7.3, what version of the sh-utils does it ship with? Just curious... - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9W/jXdjdlQoHP510RAjPEAJ490R8l2+WXenCYsEMhx15Ko+zScQCfbnX1 u7q74mxgN9SqetSYsTgazDY= =1rxT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
...and from my very current Debian testing box we get: shrapnel:~/.mail/inbox 744--- uname --version uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12 Written by David MacKenzie. Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
