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>: >=20 > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Walter Hop wrote: >=20 >> I noticed that the motd has been updated, which is great. >> = https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/10.1/etc/motd?revision=3D272461&vie= w=3Dmarkup >>=20 >> However, the following line could be improved: >> Show the version of FreeBSD installed: uname -a >>=20 >> I would recommend changing the line to: >> Show the version of FreeBSD installed: freebsd-version >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > Sorry, I don't understand the source of confusion. >=20 > 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=E2=80=99m not wrong), and the update doesn=E2=80=99t touch the kernel, = the patch-level is subsequently not reflected in the output of uname -a. That=E2=80=99s why this isn=E2=80=99t a bad idea per-se. freebsd-version doesn=E2=80=99t 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>