`uname' survey results -- bad news, it's #@!!%@# useless

[Chip Rosenthal]

In article <dpeXV#37c3rr=eric at snark.UUCP> eric at snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>The nodename field (-n) is about the only thing almost everyone seems to get
>right, though some sites do report it empty. And uuname -l is more reliable
>for that purpose (XENIXes and perhaps some other systems extract uname -n's
>output from /etc/systemid rather than a kernel ID area via uname(2)).

A nit:  under XENIX (SCO's version anyway), uname -n does indeed use
uname(2) (errrr, I mean uname(S)..blah).  It's uuname -l which reads
/etc/systemid.

I'm not sure how many people recompile their kernal to get a name in the
uname structure.  (And USENET is not a good representative sample to
determine this.  Chances are that if you are on USENET then you have done
this.  If you have SysV.)  It might not be a good idea to depend upon
even "uname -n" for a turnkey installation package.

As long as we are discussing philosophies, I really prefer Larry Wall's
"dist" approach, where you base your configuration upon the specific
capabilities rather than the OS flavor.
-- 
Chip Rosenthal     chip at vector.UUCP | I've been a wizard since my childhood.
Dallas Semiconductor   214-450-0486 | And I've earned some respect for my art.