Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:27:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Wes Peters <softweyr@xmission.com> To: Al Johnson <Al.Johnson@AJC.State.Net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 'uname -m' not alpha? (was Re: 'uname -m' not i586?) Message-ID: <199709040827.CAA14451@obie.softweyr.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <340E1ED3.14734EE6@AJC.State.Net> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970901162505.309A-100000@cody.usls.edu> <Pine.BSF.3.96.970901222635.3114B-100000@localhost> <199709040204.UAA13569@obie.softweyr.ml.org> <340E1ED3.14734EE6@AJC.State.Net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Al Johnson writes:
> My system replies with "alpha" as opposed to the suggested "axp"
> Looks like the mimicing is already taking place.
Cool. I guess the corporate decision on the 'axp' moniker didn't make
it all the way to the Digital UNIX group. They're in another state from
HQ, and those messages sometimes get mangled crossing from Taxachussetts
into Cow Hampshire. ;^)
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709040827.CAA14451>