Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:30:04 GMT From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: standards/137173: `uname -n` incorrect behavior Message-ID: <200907282030.n6SKU4h6098789@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR standards/137173; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> To: Andy Kosela <akosela@andykosela.com> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standards/137173: `uname -n` incorrect behavior Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:29:07 -0400 <<On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:40:03 GMT, Andy Kosela <akosela@andykosela.com> said: > All UNIX systems I got access to prints only hostname without the domain > information (same as 'hostname -s'). Legacy Unix implementations used the UUCP name, which was completely unconnected to any other notion of the host's name. Few people use UUCP any more, and in any case, they are free to set their hostname to something other than an FQDN if they want. > On top of that common sense tells me that "node within an > implementation-defined communications network" is just a node name, and > not a full domain name information. What you think? In what way is an FQDN not a node name? -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200907282030.n6SKU4h6098789>