LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2012, 03:25 PM   #76
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
Yep, I said pretty much the same thing myself.
Dont get too now. I agree that its not a bad idea. But,

What Volkerding said in response was also very enlightening to me. I will definitely learn to use that principle of "You ain't gonna need it". But I think Lennart needs to learn that principle the most.

I am always happy to read enlightening quotes from the big man. Thanks for making him talk

His wiki link also led me to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_philosophies

Last edited by Mercury305; 08-25-2012 at 03:31 PM.
 
Old 08-25-2012, 03:34 PM   #77
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,896

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
What Volkerding said in response was also very enlightening to me. I will definitely learn to use that principle of "You ain't gonna need it".
I guess I convinced him that I did need the file.

P.S. I'm glad you have taken this principle on board. See if you can apply it to explain why Pat has not added systemd to Slack. Though perhaps you should give me your answer in the systemd thread to keep this one on topic.

Last edited by ruario; 08-25-2012 at 03:41 PM. Reason: reworded; added link
 
Old 08-25-2012, 03:45 PM   #78
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
I agree working out if something really is necessary and only adding it if it is, is a good way to approach these things. And it looks like in this case I convinced him that I did need it.

As an off-topic side note, now you are familiar with "You ain't gonna need it", you will understand what Pat has not added systemd.
Oh man, I understood that a long time ago... my friend.

I actually enlightened myself to systemd big time today... In other words I don't understand systemd but I overstand it now lol

To overstand something you need to understand the reasoning behind the actions people make. Because, I overstand systemd I am not for it nor against it... But I look forward to it.

See if you can crack that without saying I am just some weird dude on drugs.
 
Old 08-25-2012, 04:01 PM   #79
NyteOwl
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2008
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD, others periodically
Posts: 512

Rep: Reputation: 139Reputation: 139
Then you get those folks who strip all possible identifiers off their systems to help in reducing OS fingerprinting
 
Old 08-25-2012, 04:07 PM   #80
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,896

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyteOwl View Post
Then you get those folks who strip all possible identifiers off their systems to help in reducing OS fingerprinting
Which is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. People can and should do whatever they want with their own systems.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-25-2012, 04:49 PM   #81
zithro
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Ok ruario, got your point about the file. For sure we need some standards (no one managed like this but it's now too late).

Now a question that I asked without getting an answer: why cant uname show this ?
If the file describing a distrib is named os-release, to hell, the -o switch of uname could be used (-o -> prints OS version).

I ask this because i dont know how uname gets its info from.
 
Old 08-25-2012, 05:31 PM   #82
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 330

Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
I ask this because i dont know how uname gets its info from.
uname -o is compiled into the program from what I remember.
 
Old 08-26-2012, 12:13 AM   #83
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,896

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
Ok ruario, got your point about the file. For sure we need some standards (no one managed like this but it's now too late).

Now a question that I asked without getting an answer: why cant uname show this ?
If the file describing a distrib is named os-release, to hell, the -o switch of uname could be used (-o -> prints OS version).
I'll turn that question around, why should uname list this? uname prints information from the kernel. The uname command comes from a time when the kernel and the OS were always developed in sync. This is still the case with BSD, hence why their uname works in the way you expect. In the Linux world the kernel is developed separately as one just (albeit essential) component of the overall OS (which we also confusingly tend to call Linux). Using the method of finding out the name and version number of the entire OS from the command that was designed to tell you infomration about one component makes little sense to me when they were not developed in unison. Otherwise why not arbitrarily pick some other OS component and have its version information also tell you the complete OS name and version, for example should 'ls --version' also tell you the distro/distro version?

Also consider the fact that the distro maintainers had already "standardised" on using a dedicated text file to tell you the name and version number of the whole OS. You can see that this concept was already well established because of files like /etc/slackware-version and /etc/debian_release. What /etc/os-release does is take that basic idea to the next logical step and extend it to standardise the name of the file that does this and how its contents are formatted.

That all said, my personal preference for /etc/os-release over including that information in the uname output actually has very little to do with the argument over which method is more logical. I pushed for /etc/os-release because it helps solve the original problem (identifying the distro/distro version) and a significant percentage of the other popular distros had already gone down this route. If however, those distros had instead already agreed to include this information in uname in a predictable manor and only Lennart was asking for os-release I would have asked for Slackware to do the uname method. But the fact is that either nobody cared about getting this information in uname or they failed miserably in getting distros to go along with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
I ask this because i dont know how uname gets its info from.
It gets it from the kernel but the kernel cannot know the name some maintainer has given to the collection of software bundled along with it, unless this was manually supplied at compile time. Although if /etc/os-release becomes ubiquitous it could start to pull the information from there.
 
Old 08-26-2012, 05:50 AM   #84
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,896

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
I haven't actually fired up a Gentoo install to check but it looks like they have also added this file (3 months ago)

http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/vi...g&pathrev=3203

Which is cool, as I had actually forgotten about Gentoo. It is an successful distro in its own right plus there are quite a few derivatives.
 
Old 08-26-2012, 02:54 PM   #85
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
I'll turn that question around, why should uname list this? uname prints information from the kernel. The uname command comes from a time when the kernel and the OS were always developed in sync. This is still the case with BSD, hence why their uname works in the way you expect. In the Linux world the kernel is developed separately as one just (albeit essential) component of the overall OS (which we also confusingly tend to call Linux). Using the method of finding out the name and version number of the entire OS from the command that was designed to tell you infomration about one component makes little sense to me when they were not developed in unison. Otherwise why not arbitrarily pick some other OS component and have its version information also tell you the complete OS name and version, for example should 'ls --version' also tell you the distro/distro version?

Also consider the fact that the distro maintainers had already "standardised" on using a dedicated text file to tell you the name and version number of the whole OS. You can see that this concept was already well established because of files like /etc/slackware-version and /etc/debian_release. What /etc/os-release does is take that basic idea to the next logical step and extend it to standardise the name of the file that does this and how its contents are formatted.

That all said, my personal preference for /etc/os-release over including that information in the uname output actually has very little to do with the argument over which method is more logical. I pushed for /etc/os-release because it helps solve the original problem (identifying the distro/distro version) and a significant percentage of the other popular distros had already gone down this route. If however, those distros had instead already agreed to include this information in uname in a predictable manor and only Lennart was asking for os-release I would have asked for Slackware to do the uname method. But the fact is that either nobody cared about getting this information in uname or they failed miserably in getting distros to go along with it.



It gets it from the kernel but the kernel cannot know the name some maintainer has given to the collection of software bundled along with it, unless this was manually supplied at compile time. Although if /etc/os-release becomes ubiquitous it could start to pull the information from there.
The more I read from you the more FreeBSD appears appealing for me. I am about to download and try to install on my Lenovo with Intel Graphics Card. I guess that should work without problems on a duo core 2?
As for docs... the man pages + freeBSD docs don't leave much problems. Yea, it lacks support but at least it makes sense and the system is working in perfect integration nor do i have to deal with the divisions in linux anymore.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 08:01 AM   #86
zithro
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
I'll turn that question around, why should uname list this? uname prints information from the kernel.
Wrong, uname's purpose is to "print system info", not just info from the kernel. Just do man uname please. Example: network node hostname, no relation with the kernel.
And if you took time to read my post, the -o switch "prints the operating system": "GNU/Linux".
So again, why not enhancing the uname command by adding the distro name/version to the OS switch : GNU/Linux;Slackware Linux;13.37 (with or without ';', just an example).

The Linux/BSD war is not what it is about here, but maybe they don't have standards enforcers from big companies like in the Linux "community". It seems Red hat and Redmond's firm share more things than their first letters.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 09:18 AM   #87
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,896

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
@zithro: I'm not sure what your problem is but you seem to love having pointless arguments, I don't. Nonetheless here we go again I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
Wrong, uname's purpose is to "print system info", not just info from the kernel.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the word "system". Like "Linux" it can be used to mean more than one thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
Just do man uname please. Example: network node hostname, no relation with the kernel.
You don't think I already read it before my earlier response? Perhaps instead you should read what I actually said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
uname prints information from the kernel.
I did not say that the information it prints is kernel specific, I said it gets its information from the kernel. Now I'll admit I could be wrong. My knowledge in this area is based on what others have told me. Perhaps not all the information uname gathers is from querying the the kernel. I must admit I have not actually checked the uname source to confirm this statement is true (have you?). That said, the fact that uname prints the hostname does not necessarily disprove this assumption. The kernel certainly knows what the hostname is. Try the following command:

Code:
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/hostname
In any case I think you failed to understand the main point of my previous posting. I would therefore ask you to re-read this part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
my personal preference for /etc/os-release over including that information in the uname output actually has very little to do with the argument over which method is more logical. I pushed for /etc/os-release because it helps solve the original problem (identifying the distro/distro version) and a significant percentage of the other popular distros had already gone down this route. If however, those distros had instead already agreed to include this information in uname in a predictable manor and only Lennart was asking for os-release I would have asked for Slackware to do the uname method. But the fact is that either nobody cared about getting this information in uname or they failed miserably in getting distros to go along with it.
If you are still not clear. Here is a summary, I don't have strong feelings about the method by which this was fixed and was happy to accept the method that the other major distros had put their weight behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
So again, why not enhancing the uname command by adding the distro name/version to the OS switch
In my eyes, whether updating uname is/was a better idea is irrelevant now that the major distros are all adopting /etc/os-release. I must admit I am also not sure why you care in any case, other than to be intentionally argumentative. The problem of distro detection obviously didn't affect you because you failed to realise the complexity in doing so, judging by your earlier comment. If you really do want/need uname to include this information you might want to re-read this comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
Although if /etc/os-release becomes ubiquitous it could start to pull the information from there.
By 'it' I meant uname. If you want GNU Core Utils uname to include the distro name then contact the maintainer and ask him/her to consider having uname read the file /etc/os-release (if present) and use this to include the distro name in the ouput of "uname -o". Then uname will work as you expect and we still have one standard for defining the distro/distro release.

P.S. BSD uname does not need /etc/os-release nor a patch to uname to look for it, since it already works as you expect in any case.

Last edited by ruario; 08-27-2012 at 09:20 AM. Reason: fixed broken bolding
 
Old 08-27-2012, 09:44 AM   #88
zithro
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
OMG dude, this a forum. Let other people write their thoughts please, we already got your point ... More than ever.
I'll just quote you :
Quote:
I must admit I have not actually checked the uname source to confirm this statement is true (have you?)
No, and that's why I ask, but I'd like an answer from people that REALLY know.

PS: i even dont care about the personal attack ... Just think twice before writing BS please.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-27-2012, 09:59 AM   #89
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,896

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
OMG dude, this a forum. Let other people write their thoughts please, we already got your point ...
They weren't just thoughts. They were answers to questions, from you, after you stated that I hadn't adequately answered you previously. If you don't want to hear more from me why ask me questions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zithro View Post
No, and that's why I ask, but I'd like an answer from people that REALLY know.

PS: i even dont care about the personal attack ... Just think twice before writing BS please.
You appear to be implying that I have intentionally tried to deceive you but in fact I gave you an answer that was/is true to the best of my knowledge. Also are you certain it isn't true? You can hardly have a go at me for not thoroughly checking my sources if you make no attempt to do the same.

P.S. In addition to the man page for the program uname, there is also an interesting man page for the system call uname ("man 2 uname"). It is worth a read as well.

Last edited by ruario; 08-27-2012 at 10:20 AM. Reason: Added the P.S.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 10:34 AM   #90
turtleli
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Distribution: Main - Slackware 14.1, Others - Gentoo, Fedora
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I've looked at the source, most of the information uname provides comes from the kernel. The operating system (i.e. GNU/Linux) is compiled into the program like the3dfxdude said and this is the only parameter which doesn't come from the kernel.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slackware 8.1 minimum install (including KDE) JaymzCobain Slackware 11 02-03-2004 08:09 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration