Very Computer

Hello, friends.  Is there any system command that returns the name
of the operating system with version number ( e.g. Solaris2.2 ) like
`uname` returning "SunOS" ?

Thanks for any info.

Witness the change in the names they use for patches. The early
patches were for Solaris 2.x, the newer patches are for SunOS 5.x.

Casper

#>Hello, friends.  Is there any system command that returns the name
#>of the operating system with version number ( e.g. Solaris2.2 ) like
#>`uname` returning "SunOS" ?

#>Thanks for any info.

According to Sun (Sunsoft), who gave a presentation on Solaris 2
to system administrators at UC Berkeley yesterday, Solaris is
a marketing term for the package that includes the operating
system, OpenWindows, and whatever. Solaris is not the
operating system; SunOS is. So we can expect the machine
to continue to come up with SunOS 5.2, they told us. I'm
sure somebody could write an application that subtracts
3 from the OS version and prefixes it with Solaris.

Incidentally, Sun told us that OS 5.3 is coming late in the
year with a number of new features and bug fixes. OS 5.4 is
coming next year with mostly performance improvements.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


University of California at Berkeley     Richmond Field Station

If you want to name it Solaris (I do), you can use:

ARCH=`uname -s` ; export ARCH
if [ "$ARCH" = "SunOS" -a "`uname -r | cut -c1`" = 5 ]
   then
      ARCH=Solaris ; export ARCH
fi

Cheers,
Christophe.

     =    Are you the police?  --  No ma'am, we're musicians.    =

Quote:>Which is a really stupid idea as *it is* a different system, not a
>release!!

SunOS 5.2 is a later release of SunOS than is SunOS 4.1, for example;
there may be people who don't consider 5.x to be SunOS but, to put it
bluntly, they're completely wrong - Sun are the only ones who get to
decide what is or isn't SunOS, because it's *their product*.

Solaris is SunOS plus OpenWindows; Solaris 1.x is SunOS 4.1.y plus
OpenWindows 2.0 or 3.0, and Solaris 2.x is SunOS 5.x plus OpenWindows
3.y, so it is not the case that the difference between a BSD+System V
Release 3 plus lots of Sun stuff OS and a System V Release 4 plus lots
of Sun stuff plus some BSD stuff OS is the difference between "SunOS"
and "Solaris" - Solaris 1.x has a BSD+System V Release 3+lots of Sun
stuff OS.

Quote:>I understand the commercial reasons but give us a *useful* uname..

        uname -r | cut -c1

and see if the answer is "4" or "5".  (If you have Solaris 1.x and
haven't installed the "System V" optional software category, use "sed"
instead of "cut".)

If you want to determine whether you're running "SunOS" or "Solaris",
you want to determine whether you have OpenWindows; to do *that*, you'd
have to see whether some bit of OpenWindows that isn't part of MIT X nor
of the XView that Sun makes freely available is present, or something
such as that (*don't* check whether you have the X11/NeWS server; while
that may work *now*, it won't work in the future, when Sun gets rid of
the X11/NeWS server).

If you want to determine which Solaris release you have, for now, you
can just map the result of "uname -r" - if Sun ever puts out a Solaris
release that changes only the non-SunOS components, that won't work,
though.

Quote:>Hello, friends.  Is there any system command that returns the name
>of the operating system with version number ( e.g. Solaris2.2 ) like
>`uname` returning "SunOS" ?

#!/bin/sh
revision=`/usr/bin/uname -r`
case $revision in
        4.1.1) echo Solaris1.0 ;;
        4.1.2) echo Solaris1.0.1 ;;
        4.1.3) echo Solaris1.1 ;;
        5.*) echo Solaris`echo $revision | /usr/bin/sed 's/^5/2/'` ;;
        *) echo 'version not recognized' 1>&2 ;;
esac

But note: Solaris = SunOS + OpenWindows + DeskSet.

Regards,

John
--


University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928

Quote:>SunOS 5.2 is a later release of SunOS than is SunOS 4.1, for example;
>there may be people who don't consider 5.x to be SunOS but, to put it
>bluntly, they're completely wrong - Sun are the only ones who get to
>decide what is or isn't SunOS, because it's *their product*.

The question now is whether 'SunOS' is a trade mark or not.  My feeling
is that 'SunOS', like 'UNIX', has come to have two uses.

One, as a trade mark with no meaning: 'the SunOS operating system'
refers to an operating system with a distinctive label 'SunOS'.  Were
Sun in the shoe business, it could well sell you 'SunOS shoes'.  Sun
decides what product to label with the distinctive label 'SunOS'.  The
term 'SunOS' has no intended descriptive meaning, i.e., it does not
describe the fuctionality of the product.

Two, it has over the years acquired a descriptive meaning, and
describes a unix that has certain features originating from Sun.  This
descriptive meaning applies only to SunOS 3.x and 4.x.  It does not
apply to the operating system contained within the Solaris 2.x
package.  Since this descriptive meaning has been acquired through
common usage, and not by legalistic fiat, Sun has no choice in the
matter.  The public does not use 'SunOS' to describe any component of
Solaris 2.x.

So, 'SunOS 5.x' may refer to an operating system, but only in a strict
trade-mark sense, i.e., label only, with no descriptive meaning.  When
its descriptive usage is intended, 'SunOS 5.x' is meaningles and
the term 'Solaris 2.x' should be used instead.
--

 >Two, it has over the years acquired a descriptive meaning, and
 >describes a unix that has certain features originating from Sun.  This
 >descriptive meaning applies only to SunOS 3.x and 4.x.  It does not
 >apply to the operating system contained within the Solaris 2.x
 >package.

Why does it not apply to SunOS 5.x?  (Hint: "it's not my beloved
*partially* BSD-based OS" is *NOT* the right answer.)

 >The public does not use 'SunOS' to describe any component of
 >Solaris 2.x.

That's a *fascinating* assertion; how many members of "the public" have
you asked about this, and what percentage of "the public" is that?
Several of those of us who *do* use "SunOS" to describe the OS component
of Solaris 2.x are, as far as I know, members of "the public"; are you
claiming that we're *not* members of "the public", or are you just
claiming that we're not a large enough *part* of the public?  If the
latter, what percentage (no need to give any digits after the decimal
point) of the public are we?

And why does the same logic not apply to, say, SunOS 4.1.3, given that
the CD-ROM that contains, among other things, SunOS 4.1.3 says "Solaris
1.1" on it?

Quote:>When
>its descriptive usage is intended, 'SunOS 5.x' is meaningles and
>the term 'Solaris 2.x' should be used instead.

Quote:> >The public does not use 'SunOS' to describe any component of
> >Solaris 2.x.
>That's a *fascinating* assertion; how many members of "the public" have
>you asked about this, and what percentage of "the public" is that?
>Several of those of us who *do* use "SunOS" to describe the OS component
>of Solaris 2.x are, as far as I know, members of "the public"...

Quote:>Almost all postings in comp.unix.solaris are about Solarix 2.x, while
>postings about pre-5.x SunOS largely stay in other newsgroups.  This
>tells you that people associate 'solaris' with something other than
>pre-5.x SunOS.

In other words, "the public" are not united behind your belief that
"Solaris" refers only to those Solaris releases that include SunOS 5.x.

A *careful* reading of this newsgroup would *also* reveal that "the
public" are not united behind the belief that the OS component of
Solaris 2.x is not SunOS, either; there are plenty of postings that
speak of "SunOS 5.x".

(Then again, reading this group or any of the "comp.sys.sun.*" groups
would reveal that many members of "the public" are under the delusion
that the company's name is a set of initials, so the fact that many
members of the public are also under the delusion that "Solaris" refers
only to the Sun releases that include SunOS 5.x does not demonstrate
that this is not a delusion.)

People who are seriously involved in Sun support should understand the
exact product names that Sun uses.  I consider it a (minor) matter of
professionalism to use the correct term.  However we also should also
recognize the short-hand terms used by many in the community.  

Even Sun can be caught on occassion: I have on my desk the "Solaris
Porting Guide".  It is about porting to Solaris 2.  It uses "Solaris"
for Solaris 2 in a number of places in the text.  The most interesting
slip is in the price books.  As late as May, 1992, Sun's price list
showed "SunOS to Solaris upgrades".  In the November, 1992 price book
this is referred to as "Solaris 2 Upgrades".  However I believe the
May entry reflected a common usage.

Indeed one can see a shift in usage between the various price books.
In the Feb, 1992, book, Solaris is used primarily (1) without a
version number, as a term for Sun's system software in general, all
versions, (2) without a version number, to refer to Solaris 2.x.
However there is at least one occurence of Solaris 1.1 and Solaris
2.0.  By May, Solaris with a version number (both 1.x and 2.x numbers)
is slightly more common, but the previous usage still occurs.  By
November, the current official terminology is applied consistently.
SunOS with a version number has been mostly replaced by Solaris with a
version number, and the term "Solaris" is used equally with version
numbers starting in 1 and 2.

I have no desire to turn away people who want to talk about 4.x on
this newsgroup.  But given the time when it appeared, I've always
assumed the original intent was to provide a place to discuss issues
specific to Solaris 2.

Cheers,
Christophe.

 -=-                         Vivement GNU !                                -=-

I didn't have the heart to ask.

(picoreview of the exchange: skip everything but the sessions, but
 drop by early: SunSoft seems unable to count the number of pre-
 registers, and ran out of materials.  The Multithreading session
 was worthwhile, the Device Drivers less so, but vaguely interesting,
 as long as you only want general information)
--
Todd Masco                    | "life without caution/ the only worth living

SysAdmin, Clinton Group, Inc. |  love for the facts/ protectless" - A Rich

Quote:>Like "the public" was wrong also to prefer X11 to Suntools, and X11R5 to
>Openwindows, and Tk/Motif/etc.. to OLIT/TNT/Xviews, and.. and.. maybe
>SunOS to Solaris.. (ooops, sorry SunOS 5.x ! :-)