Very Computer

   O.K. - so whats the deal with that?

# uname -sr
SunOS 5.6

The following scenerio has been dramatized for USENET

   One does a 'shutdown -i 0 -y' and one recieves:

Usage: shutdown [ -krhfn ] shutdowntime  [ message ]

   So one scratches one's head and does a 'man shutdown', seeing:

SYNOPSIS
     /usr/sbin/shutdown [ -y ] [ -g grace-period ]
          [ -i init-state ] [ message ]

   "Perhaps I typo'd" one thinks to oneself and issues said
   shutdown command once again - and is once again greeted with:

Usage: shutdown [ -krhfn ] shutdowntime  [ message ]

   After many curses and much gnashing of teeth, one finally
   figures it out - there are *two* shutdowns, the one under
   /usr/ucb/ being first in one's path, while the one for
   which the man page is intended resides in /usr/sbin like
   any decent, self-respecting shutdown command would.

   SO ...

   Just what *is* the logic behind this tom-foolery, anyhow?

   I'd appreciate any enlightenment any kind soul out there
   could provide for me.

Beers,

Corey

--

      "Windows was created to keep the stupid people away from Unix.
      An "MS advocate" is therefore already beneath contempt."
                -- Tom Christiansen

Use "man -s1b shutdown" to get the man page on the /usr/ucb
version.  The 1b section of the manual describes the BSD
compatibility commands in /usr/ucb .

It is probably not a good idea to put /usr/ucb in your PATH
before /usr/bin and /usr/sbin on Solaris, since some scripts
and other programs may assume "System V" behavior of certain
commands.  Using aliases or some such to use the BSD versions
of programs like df or ps would be safer.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.             netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

You're running /usr/ucb/shutdown with the arguments for /usr/sbin/shutdown.
(As you already noticed.  :) )

/usr/ucb exists for backwards compatibility.  Any or all of it could go
away at any time, so don't get used to any of the stuff in there.  I find
it generally causes more trouble than its worth anyways.  You might want
to take /usr/ucb out of your PATH altogether.

:       "Windows was created to keep the stupid people away from Unix.
:       An "MS advocate" is therefore already beneath contempt."
:                 -- Tom Christiansen

Hee!

--
Brandon Hume    - hume -> bofh.halifax.ns.ca, http://www.bofh.halifax.ns.ca/

Beers,

Corey

--

   "Give me a cold beer, a hot woman and a computer with linux on it,
   and you can keep the beer and the chick."
       -- seen on USENET

Beers,

Corey

--

  "Give me a cold beer, a hot woman and a computer with linux on it,
   and you can keep the beer and the chick."
       -- seen on USENET

"man intro" tells you about what the various 1 sections like
1b, 1c, 1f, 1s, and 1m are for.

"man -s3 intro" tells you about the various 3 sections (3b, 3c,
etc.).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.             netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

--
Reinier Post

--
Roger Marquis
Roble Systems Consulting
http://www.roble.com/

Quote:> 2) the BSD variants of many popular tools
>(chown, ps, df, ls, ...) are preferable to their SYSV alternatives
>and 3) there are no alternatives for some utilities under /usr/ucb
>(vipw, whoami, biff, ...)

Note to folks in general: If you want to use BSD so much, then stick to BSD
systems.  Otherwise, its a good idea to actually learn the system you are
using properly.

--
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
 --------------------------------------------------
Secret nONsONaTIAL monologue...
H52QdPK4iQPijBgQeMKIUQOCjRg0IN6IYWMGhJszBevIARHGjBuLZTaKCZNx4x0xb0CsWYlQ
jpwxINDAPKMRBB0xYgiqEVMGj0qWbsIQnOMyD4g5ITcaBOGRDYg6C+OwWalAAQ

Solaris is not Linux, FreeBSD or SunOS.  If you want the machines to behave
the same, use the same OS.

: heterogenous environment, 2) the BSD variants of many popular tools
: (chown, ps, df, ls, ...) are preferable to their SYSV alternatives

Preferable by whose measure?  Even the commands you mention... the differences
between them and the "proper" SYSV versions are so slight as to be called
piddling.  Certainly not enough to elevate them to "preferable".

: and 3) there are no alternatives for some utilities under /usr/ucb
: (vipw, whoami, biff, ...)

Somebody else already pointed out the "alternatives" for these commands.

Honestly, if you're going to use different OSes, learn to deal with the
differences.  I've never seen the useability or integrity of a Solaris box
so compromised as when someone tries to turn it into a Linux box.

--
Brandon Hume    - hume -> bofh.halifax.ns.ca, http://www.bofh.halifax.ns.ca/

Quote:>Honestly, if you're going to use different OSes, learn to deal with the
>differences.  I've never seen the useability or integrity of a Solaris box
>so compromised as when someone tries to turn it into a Linux box.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

-tom

Quote:>: and 3) there are no alternatives for some utilities under /usr/ucb
>: (vipw, whoami, biff, ...)

>Somebody else already pointed out the "alternatives" for these commands.

>Honestly, if you're going to use different OSes, learn to deal with the
>differences.  I've never seen the useability or integrity of a Solaris box
>so compromised as when someone tries to turn it into a Linux box.

-tom

Jeeze, don't be so * the guy...

Maybe he changes the root sh to a *statically* linked bash.

Beers,

Corey

--

   "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy."
        -- Charlie McCarthy

Whats wrong with a dynamically or statically linked bash as root shell ?
Please tell me, so maybe I can avoid some serious stupidities.

TIA,
Rudi