Re: inconsistent "uname -s" option

[Bob Proulx]

Robert Millan wrote:
> > +differ.  Some operating systems (e.g., FreeBSD, HP-UX) have the same
> > +name as their underlying kernels; others (e.g., GNU/Linux, Solaris)
> > +do not.
> 
>   "Some kernels (e.g., FreeBSD's, HP-UX's) report the same name as their
>   overlying operating systems; others (e.g., Linux, SunOS) do not."
> 
> This way we are saying that the kernel "reports" that name, but we don't
> claim that the name is correct. It's left at the readers' discretion to
> decide wether the kernel really has that name or not.

Hmm...  I rather think that if the kernel reports the kernel name as
XYZ then it has declared itself to be named XYZ.

You might as well include IBM's AIX in the list of examples too.  This
is the output from the stock (non-GNU) uname.

  uname -a
  AIX ibm1 3 4 000083858900

  uname -s
  AIX

  uname -m
  000083858900

The uname command is a terrible command.  The only output which has a
chance at portability is the default output, same as uname -s output.
I recommend avoiding any other use of the command.  After checking for
a particular system it is okay to further query about other features
known to exist on that particular implementation, however.

Bob