Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:25:45 +0100 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Walter Hop <freebsd@spam.lifeforms.nl> Subject: Re: Small motd nit in 10.1 Message-ID: <D2E7B724-C16B-4B23-AF9F-F5DE2237E40D@ultra-secure.de> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1410291809280.16887@wonkity.com> References: <8C81A636-D2B5-4EFB-9EA3-58E88E16CA94@spam.lifeforms.nl> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1410291809280.16887@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Am 30.10.2014 um 01:14 schrieb Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>: > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Walter Hop wrote: > >> I noticed that the motd has been updated, which is great. >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/10.1/etc/motd?revision=272461&view=markup >> >> However, the following line could be improved: >> Show the version of FreeBSD installed: uname -a >> >> I would recommend changing the line to: >> Show the version of FreeBSD installed: freebsd-version >> >> Users often confuse the kernel version (uname -a) with the actual FreeBSD version from the freebsd-version(1) command. Because of this, people needlessly worry whether their system was updated correctly after freebsd-update has run, because they erroneously check this with ?uname -a?. A small motd change will hopefully prevent that. > > Sorry, I don't understand the source of confusion. > > Besides the version, uname(1) also shows the architecture and kernel config file name. If you use binary updates (which is the preferred method these days, if I’m not wrong), and the update doesn’t touch the kernel, the patch-level is subsequently not reflected in the output of uname -a. That’s why this isn’t a bad idea per-se. freebsd-version doesn’t show architecture, though, which might be of interest.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D2E7B724-C16B-4B23-AF9F-F5DE2237E40D>