uname output ?
Hi all, Does anyone know what happened between the 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 kernels that changed the output of 'uname': client:/usr/src/linux# uname --version uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12 pll@tater:~$ uname --version uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11 yet: Linux client 2.4.19 #1 Wed Aug 14 16:43:38 EDT 2002 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux Linux tater 2.4.18-pll #6 Fri Jul 5 19:47:06 EDT 2002 i686 unknown Any idea what the 2nd 'unknown' field is suppose to be ? The first I believe is 'processor type', but I can't seem to find any documentation on what all the fields are suppose to be. The man/info pages lists everything I can in the second example, but the last 2 seem to be undocumented. Not that I care all that much, it's just another one of those curiosity things :) -- 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 Thu, 15 Aug 2002, at 1:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does anyone know what happened between the 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 kernels > that changed the output of 'uname': > > client:/usr/src/linux# uname --version > uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12 > > pll@tater:~$ uname --version > uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11 Er, are you sure it is not the different version of *uname* that is causing the different answers? That would seem far more likely to me. In any event, try "uname --help", and then run uname for each option, one at a time, to identify which ones generate which output. -- 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 ?
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:55:20 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, at 1:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Does anyone know what happened between the 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 kernels >> that changed the output of 'uname': >> >> client:/usr/src/linux# uname --version >> uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12 >> >> pll@tater:~$ uname --version >> uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11 > > Er, are you sure it is not the different version of *uname* that is >causing the different answers? That would seem far more likely to me. Err. I don't know how I missed that. I specifically checked the versions and could have sworn they were both 2.0.11. I guess my vgrep is faulty, time to apt-get upgrade vgrep ;) Yep, it appears that uname got more options, and I was looking at the man/info for the old one installed on my laptop. The second 'unknown' is the '-i' or --hardware-platform, and the GNU/Linux label is the '-o' or '--operating-system'. 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. I can't think of a scenario where one would be running a GNU/Linux "operating system" with a kernel which was not Linux? Sure, you could run the Hurd kernel, but that wouldn't be GNU/Linux, would it? Can anyone think of a scenario where the kernel name and the OS name would or should not be the same, at least in the Linux world? (I suppose one could argue that Sun ships the Solaris Operating Environment, and therefore, the "kernel name" might be SunOS, but the "operating system" would be Solaris, but IMO, the whole SunOS vs. Solaris thing is bunch of marketing crap.) -- 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 ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >>> 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
Re: uname output ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Bayard R. Coolidge hath spake thusly: > Depending on what distro you have, you might want to check > its history to see what version of util-linux stuff you have Er, > # uname --version > uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0 > Written by David MacKenzie. The uname command is part of the sh-utils package, not util-linux. :) - -- 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/lTdjdlQoHP510RAg7xAJ9h98maPXsPV7Dq7jUALAmahVeSHACgis6I a1n/0GpyhppveZyWyfKjVvY= =dI5z -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
"Derek D. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] kindly pointed out how stupid I am - I mean, I knew I was ignorant, but didn't realize I was that bad... FWIW, SuSE 8.0 has sh-utils-2.0-219 and SuSE 7.3 has sh-utils-2.0-106 and I don't believe that there have been any recent updates. But, then, I could be wrong about that, too. *sigh* More wine, Igor - let's try the Merlot next... Bayard ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:54:16 EDT "Derek D. Martin" said: >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. Ahm, yeah, but the distribution is Debian/Sid in my case, not GNU/Linux. Provided I can get something which is easily discernible and makes sense consistently, I'd be happy. What I don't want is uname on ever Linux distro reporting something useless: Debian => GNU/Linux RH=>Rawhide Mandrake=> random_string etc. I should be able to expect: Debian => Debian RH=>Red Hat Mandrake=> Mandrake at the very least. At the best, maybe something which denoted the release number like '3.0' or '7.2' etc. But I'm not holding my breath. >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. >For those with RH 7.3, what version of the sh-utils does it ship with? >Just curious... Debian/Sid has 2.0.12 in it today :) -- 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: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:56:20 EDT "Derek D. Martin" said: >The uname command is part of the sh-utils package, not util-linux. :) Unless your on Debian, in which case it's shellutils :) -- 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 ?
And SuSE: gaf@gaf-lap:~> uname -a Linux gaf-lap 2.4.18-4GB #1 Wed Mar 27 13:57:05 UTC 2002 i686 unknown On 15 Aug 2002 at 15:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:54:16 EDT > "Derek D. Martin" said: > > >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. > > Ahm, yeah, but the distribution is Debian/Sid in my case, not GNU/Linux. > Provided I can get something which is easily discernible and makes > sense consistently, I'd be happy. What I don't want is uname on ever > Linux distro reporting something useless: > > Debian => GNU/Linux > RH=>Rawhide > Mandrake=> random_string > > etc. > > I should be able to expect: > > Debian => Debian > RH=>Red Hat > Mandrake=> Mandrake > > > at the very least. At the best, maybe something which denoted the > release number like '3.0' or '7.2' etc. But I'm not holding my > breath. > > >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. > > >For those with RH 7.3, what version of the sh-utils does it ship with? > >Just curious... > > Debian/Sid has 2.0.12 in it today :) > -- > > 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 -- 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 ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > > In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:56:20 EDT > "Derek D. Martin" said: > > >The uname command is part of the sh-utils package, not util-linux. :) > > Unless your on Debian, in which case it's shellutils :) Well, the official name of the project appears to be shellutils, but absolutely everywhere else it's refered to (even on their own web pages) it's called sh-utils. http://www.gnu.org/software/shellutils/shellutils.html I just love ambiguity... - -- 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 iD8DBQE9XANAdjdlQoHP510RAjieAKCGZBf/iAeVEfi1ek0+KCgJP2nC9ACdGlIu 1Yb+0Mmahdyd5bbGGdpciwI= =g9kE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:45:09 EDT "Jerry Feldman" said: >And SuSE: >gaf@gaf-lap:~> uname -a >Linux gaf-lap 2.4.18-4GB #1 Wed Mar 27 13:57:05 UTC 2002 i686 unknown That's the old version of uname. You need to upgrade to 2.0.12 of sh-utils. -- 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 ?
That's what is supplied on SuSE 8.0 with the latest updates. On 15 Aug 2002 at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:45:09 EDT > "Jerry Feldman" said: > > >And SuSE: > >gaf@gaf-lap:~> uname -a > >Linux gaf-lap 2.4.18-4GB #1 Wed Mar 27 13:57:05 UTC 2002 i686 unknown > > That's the old version of uname. You need to upgrade to 2.0.12 of > sh-utils. > -- > > 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! > > -- 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 ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:46:14 EDT "Jerry Feldman" said: >That's what is supplied on SuSE 8.0 with the latest updates. Yes, I'm aware of that, but the discussion is about what does the latest version of uname, which is 2.0.12, report on various distributions. We're trying to determine what each distro reports as the "--operating-system" name. My guess is, and this is without looking at the code, that if the distro has not customized uname in any way, uname will report the most generic possible answer if it can make any such determination, or report 'unknown'. -- 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 ?
I should probably query SuSE and find out when they will be upgrading. On 16 Aug 2002 at 10:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:46:14 EDT > "Jerry Feldman" said: > > >That's what is supplied on SuSE 8.0 with the latest updates. > > Yes, I'm aware of that, but the discussion is about what does the > latest version of uname, which is 2.0.12, report on various > distributions. We're trying to determine what each distro reports as > the "--operating-system" name. > > My guess is, and this is without looking at the code, that if the > distro has not customized uname in any way, uname will report the > most generic possible answer if it can make any such determination, > or report 'unknown'. > -- > > 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! > > -- 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 ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:11:57 EDT "Jerry Feldman" said: >I should probably query SuSE and find out when they will be upgrading. Well, you could also just grab the latest sh-utils package and compile/install it on your system and test it out. Or, better yet, create a SuSE package for them and contribute it back. -- 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 ?
>>> We're trying to determine what each distro reports as >>> the "--operating-system" name. SuSE 8.0Pro on my system 'dualie' (Asus A7M266-D, 2xMP1800+) uname --all Linux dualie 2.4.18 #12 SMP Wed Aug 7 13:37:25 EDT 2002 i686 unknown SuSE 7.3Pro on my system 'fireworks' (Asus P2L97DS, 2x PII@333) uname --all Linux fireworks 2.4.18 #2 SMP Sun Jun 30 15:07:38 EDT 2002 i686 unknown I haven't fired up the PC164 (Alpha EV56@500MHz, RH 7.2) to see what that will emit. HTH, Bayard ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
I could do that too. On 16 Aug 2002 at 10:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:11:57 EDT > "Jerry Feldman" said: > > >I should probably query SuSE and find out when they will be upgrading. > > Well, you could also just grab the latest sh-utils package and > compile/install it on your system and test it out. > > Or, better yet, create a SuSE package for them and contribute it back. > -- > > 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! > > -- 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 ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:40:19 EDT "Bayard R. Coolidge" said: We're trying to determine what each distro reports as the "--operating-system" name. >SuSE 8.0Pro on my system 'dualie' (Asus A7M266-D, 2xMP1800+) > >uname --all >Linux dualie 2.4.18 #12 SMP Wed Aug 7 13:37:25 EDT 2002 i686 unknown You seem to have missed the same point Gerry did: WE NEED THE RESULTS FROM uname version 2.0.12! The above results are from uname version 2.0.11, which are the same for all Linux systems and does not have the '--operating-system' option. (sorry for yelling :) -- 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: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:18:11 EDT mike ledoux said: >Knowing that most distributions *don't* ship with 2.0.12, and >don't provide a customized version, indicates to me that this new >'functionality' is nearly useless. True, I guess 'NEED' was too strong. But if people are going to send in the output of 'uname', I'd rather have the output from 2.0.12 than 2.0.11, which is identical for all Linux systems. Even if it hasn't been customized by a distribution, that information would be more interesting than what's already known. 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. -- 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 ?
>>>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 ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:03:15 EDT "Bayard R. Coolidge" said: 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_. Yeah, I'm aware of that. The point of this whole useless debate is 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). With the new version comes 2 new fields of output for 'uname': OS type and hardware platform. Under Debian, OS type is reported as GNU/Linux. The question is, what will this field report under other Linux distros. Obviously, in order to find this out, we need to find other distros which have the new version of uname. Since this new version of uname is evidently so new that the GNU project hasn't even updated their own web pages for it, I don't expect any other distro to be shipping it. Therefore, the only way to discover what this field reports on other distros or versions of UNIX is to get the source for sh-utils and compile it on those distros/OSes. However, even if one did that, there's no guarantee that our questions will be answered. 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. I'm mildly curious what the default would be. It could be 'unknown', or, the autoconf scripts may be able to detect some default for some set of OSes. The only real way to find out is to compile/install the source on something other than Debian, whether it be SuSE, Solaris, or True64, etc. -- 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 ?
>>> 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 ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly: > What is the point? If these options only exist in the unstable version > of debian, they aren't of much use right now. One possible point, for those with a bit of spare time and energy, is to lobby the distro vendors to start using this field to identify the distro version, *before* they release a distro with this version, so that the next major release of their distro goes out with this feature. - -- 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 iD8DBQE9XT1OdjdlQoHP510RAvC6AJwPa59zeqDpwMElOmC4YGBD8zsu8gCgsypP vDngwtq0Jy9knaTBM0JN4pQ= =Dd4X -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:41:50 EDT mike ledoux said: >Is this 2.0.12 version GNU sh-utils, or something else? I noticed that >in your output it reported itself as '(sh-utils)', where the GNU versions >report themselves as '(GNU sh-utils)'. Looking on ftp.gnu.org, the latest >*released* sh-utils is still sh-utils-2.0.tar.gz, dated 15 Aug 1999. >According to http://www.gnu.org/software/shellutils/shellutils.html, >the latest testing version is 2.0.11 as of 2002/01/14. > >All of this makes me suspect that the Debian team has created their own >version of sh-utils, which is what you are seeing. OTOH, the debian >website still calls this version GNU sh-utils, so I wonder why it reports >itself differently. Well, from 'apt-cache show shellutils': Description: The GNU shell programming utilities. The utilities: basename chroot date dirname echo env expr factor false groups hostid id logname nice nohup pathchk pinky printenv printf pwd seq sleep stty tee test true tty uname users who whoami yes. >What is the point? If these options only exist in the unstable version >of debian, they aren't of much use right now. Because it's not only a debian specific package necessarilly. It's the GNU shell utilities. It's entirely possible that they've set up autoconf to determine what this field should be a compile time. I wouldn't be surprised if you were right, but there's no guarantee that this is the case. That, and I'm curious :) -- 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 Fri, 16 Aug 2002, at 1:16pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Since this new version of uname is evidently so new that the GNU project > hasn't even updated their own web pages for it ... That just means it was released within the past five years. GNU's project management makes Microsoft's look good. > Therefore, the only way to discover what this field reports on other > distros or versions of UNIX is to get the source for sh-utils ... 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. :) -- 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 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 ?
On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote: > Add to that the fact that Red Hat's latest beta, Limbo2 ... 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 ?
Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. I'm running Redhat 7.3, and that command doesn't exist on my machine. What package is it in? -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER [EMAIL PROTECTED] / YAHOO abreauj Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 Some people say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I often respond, "When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled." msg00256/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 02:13, John Abreau wrote: > Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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. > > I'm running Redhat 7.3, and that command doesn't exist on my machine. > What package is it in? The package is redhat-lsb for which there is a recent errata. It's at ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/7.3/en/os/i386/redhat-lsb-1.2.0-1.i386.rpm. Don't know about other distributions yet. Only Red Hat, Suse, and Mandrake are LSB certified so far. I'm sure there will be more to come. -- -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 ?
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 ?
> 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
Re: uname output ?
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:55:35 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> Therefore, the only way to discover what this field reports on other >> distros or versions of UNIX is to get the source for sh-utils ... > > 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. :) Hey, I did all the initial work of identifying this problem and informing the list about it. You actually want me to *look* at code too? C'mon, I know that you know I'm terribly busy with far more interesting endeavors ;) -- 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: 17 Aug 2002 15:42:06 EDT Paul Iadonisi said: > I'd have to agree that this is a pretty useless feature. Only because they've chosen to make it so. Of course, there's nothing preventing us from modifying that to identify which release of which distro it is. I'll attempt to do that at some point, however, I only know how to determine whether the system is Debian or Redhat, never having used any other distro. I'll see what I can come up with and let you all know :) -- 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 10:46:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 :) Do you have a pointer to that? I'm curious what distinctions he makes to argue for "GNU/Linux" but not "GNU/Solaris"... -- Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - "To understand recursion one must first understand recursion." -- Anonymous ___ 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 ?
>At least in 6.2, they tested for file existance before >trying to use it... 7.3 doesn't even bother doing that. You apparently missed their announcement; as of 7.3 RedHat introduced the optimization of simply assuming that *everybody* is using their distribution, so the ID files are deemed no longer necessary... ;-> ___ 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 ?
On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 07:10, Thomas M. Albright wrote: > On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote: > > > > Add to that the fact that Red Hat's latest beta, Limbo2 ... > > > 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? :) I got rid of 'em, too. :-( I guess maybe we can expect to see a new beta soon? Or maybe the release? Who knows, but betas are usually only available for a limited time, so I'm not surprised. You can, however, get the package under discussion in the rawhide directory (ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/rawhide). -- -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 ?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 11:28am, Mark Komarinski 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. Relying on /etc/issue is a bad idea. If the admin is using /etc/issue for what it was intended for (displaying a banner prior to login), they may well have changed that. I know I sure do. -- 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, at 11:26am, Michael O'Donnell wrote: > Wouldn't the presence of (some combination of) the various apt-related > directories be a reliable sign that you had a Debian box? APT has been ported to RPM. > I don't know much about RedHat but I'd assume the corresponding RPM stuff > could serve the same purpose. RPM has been ported to Debian. Additionally, many distributions aside from Red Hat use RPM -- SuSE and Mandrake are the most well-known. I think the LSB even requires RPM to be available, which would mean any LSB-compliant distro would match. -- 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 ?
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:12:51 EDT Bob Bell said: >On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:46:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> 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 :) > >Do you have a pointer to that? Not off hand. I believe it was in one of my fruitless and pointless private arguments, er, debates with him :) I'll see if I can dig it up. >I'm curious what distinctions he makes to argue for "GNU/Linux" >but not "GNU/Solaris"... Basically it boils down to a "Linux System" is comprised of almost entirely free software from the kernel to the window manager to the shell utilities, etc. and GNU and the FSF were the ones pioneering the whole concept of Free Software. Whereas, Solaris is almost entirely non-free software which may or may not have free software added to it, therefore, it's not GNU/Solaris, since so little is free software. I'll see if I can dig up that e-mail some where. -- 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 11:43:06AM -0400, mike ledoux wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:28:09AM -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: > > 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. > > 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? -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 11:15:36 EDT mike ledoux said: >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 || cat /etc/debian_version Almost all distros do have a similar file. -- 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 ?
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 11:46am, mike ledoux wrote: > [root@ibm1 /root]# cat /etc/redhat-release > cat: /etc/redhat-release: No such file or directory > > This is on a kickstart-installed RH6.2 box. 'redhat-release' is an > optional package, at least in 6.2. *shakes head in disbelief* According to Red Hat, that file should always be there. It is not "optional" when performing an interactive install -- even with no "optional" packages selected, that gets installed. Red Hat's initscripts (the aforementioned rc.local) assume it exists. I suspect redhat-release was just never included in the Kickstart profile. Whether that is a bug in Kickstart or a bug in the dependencies depends on your point-of-view. Either way, it is rather ironic. *sigh* Only Red Hat... -- 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 ?
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:59:25 EDT mike ledoux said: >That's what I thought you were going to say. Of course, as pointed out >elsethread, that method is quite unreliable, at least for Red Hat. Well, yeah, which has been my complaint for a long time. There is no reliable method to determine distro and release under Linux. The lsb_release package does offer promise, but again, it's an optionally installed package at least on Debian (I don't know about those which are now "lsb compliant"). As Derek pointed out, it would be best if distribution providers customized the uname fields appropriately for their next release. However, even that ultimately won't help unless they make those packages dependant upon something else like lsb_release. 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 :( -- 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, 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, 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... 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. - -- 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 iD8DBQE9YRwkdjdlQoHP510RAp8TAJ4wStM+3ri5dJtqky5iqHZkn2DXhACfbVkr xEDVRUAyeo1n69AwzI0oqto= =yvAt -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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > I suspect redhat-release was just never included in the Kickstart profile. > Whether that is a bug in Kickstart or a bug in the dependencies depends on > your point-of-view. Either way, it is rather ironic. *sigh* Only Red > Hat... I suspect that Mike removed it. Since he told me he did about a year ago... ;-) - -- 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 iD8DBQE9YRyAdjdlQoHP510RArGyAJ0fGlGC2h6PiFUk44DW7dFumYylAwCeKc3q LvLG8M24r8lE+RblpBc1kSc= =CmDt -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, [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 ?
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:27:43 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Figuring out which distro "flavor" you are on (Red Hat Linux, Debian >GNU/Linux, etc.) is, I think, the most we can ask for. Agreed, but it would be nice to have my cake and eat it too :) -- 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 ?
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 19 Aug 2002, at 2:21pm, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> Ok, how about /proc/version?
That just appears to be the union of the information contained in "uname
-a" and "gcc -v". In particular, it does not actually give the distribution
anywhere. I suppose you could maintain a table which mapped compiler
releases to distribution releases, but that strikes me as being even uglier
than the /etc/*-{release,version} hacks. And who is to say the same
compiler won't get used for two different {distributions, releases}?
--
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, Jeff Macdonald hath spake thusly: > Ok, how about /proc/version? /proc/version contains the version of the kernel, the user@host it was built on, and the version of the compiler it was built with. The system it was built on need not necessarily be the machine it is running on (as is the case with ALL distribution kernels), or for that matter eventhe same operating system... It could (at least theoretically) be cross-compiled on a Solaris machine. This information is not helpful at all. - -- 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 iD8DBQE9YTsYdjdlQoHP510RArjqAJ97rXt99nZaUTMRSn+hqeU0Aene5wCfX8Ri aoYLIVqw3cd49cJ2EGOjmu8= =gH4o -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 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. Many system administrators wisely modify /etc/issue so that it will NOT tell you. Providing this information tells an attacker exactly which exploits are most likely going to work against the system. So this is not reliable. - -- 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 iD8DBQE9YRCKdjdlQoHP510RAnqoAKCZvHfGsZkWY8Iofs1WgPMGisRN3QCggVEI gyNi6UVpOtkzPOJcd0zVJjQ= =RNCb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: uname output ?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 [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. moon@server:~$ cat /etc/mandrake-release Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Vitamin) for i586 moon@server:~$ -- Bill Mullen 4:12pm, 2002-08-19 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
