From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 9 15:22:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04035 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:22:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04030 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:22:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rivers@dignus.com) Received: from ponds.dignus.com (ponds.vnet.net [166.82.177.48]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA23332 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lakes.dignus.com (lakes [10.0.0.3]) by ponds.dignus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA11744 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rivers@localhost) by lakes.dignus.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id SAA07605 for freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:27:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers Message-Id: <199710092227.SAA07605@lakes.dignus.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I have a program, written for Linux, that uses the uname() information as part of its license check... Unfortunately, the check fails... the company indicates that the failure is due to incorrect uname() information. So - does the uname() call under Linux emulation claim to be a LINUX box? - or - does it claim to be a FreeBSD box... Which should it do? Seems to me, for accurate Linux emulation, it should claim to be Linux... - Opinions? - - Dave Rivers -