Talk:Uname

message: Removed VER command AGAIN.  Windows is NT based not UNIX based and thus the version command for Windows does not belong here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows is not UNIX

message: This article really needs a better AIX example, possibly something for Tru64, and anything running on IA64 hardware.  I don't have access to any of these systems - does anyone else?
208.66.212.43 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the AIX example. --Unixguy (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Added Tru64 and a number of others, checked on the polarhome server farm. Towopedia (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: More examples

message: Per the discussion above, there's no need to make the example list comprehensive. most examples impart little information to the reader, and I'd argue that we really only need one or two, but we're not having eleven at any rate. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You had removed two interesting entries which I'm re-inserting (see my comment about interesting differences above); Cray (which is quite unique) and Red Hat (with unique uname -p). Towopedia (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimmed the list again 

message: I recently reverted the article body (keeping the new interwiki links) to a version from this time last year. The content added from that point consisted entirely of the following:
# Trivial additional examples. This happens because, as noted previously, people find it easy to tack things onto lists even if they're only meant to be representative and not comprehensive.
# Material copied verbatim from The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7. This material is © The Open Group, and I can't see any licensing terms which would allow for the inclusion of verbatim chunks of said text to be used here.
# Original research of various forms, including ranting about the difference (or lack thereof) between operating systems and kernels, or about the almost entirely unrelated concept of Internet user agents.
None of this is worth keeping, and #2 in particular could very easily get us into trouble. Hence the revert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that you had reversed the wrong information to the article and lies from GNU propaganda about uname print. How does that help peole who are not GNU fans? I tried to check the information for what you have reverted and the info what there was to clean the false information, what is now again brought to visible. Please revert your edits back to explain how the GNU version is misleading facts about twisting the uname prints and adding unstandard -o option to GNU/Linux. Golftheman (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you've been told repeatedly, we cannot derive information in articles from our own interpretation of primary sources. For what it's worth, I actually agree with your premise, but not with the way in which this article was used as a soapbox to call the FSF out about it. If a reliable, secondary source can be included which does its own interpretation to reach this conclusion (that GNU uname deliberately provides nonstandard output for the sake of conflating the GNU userland with what uname has traditionally deemed to be the OS) then I'll be more than happy to include that information in a neutral fashion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  please tell what more you need than black and white about IEEE standards what are used everywhere else because it is a standard. And then black and white from GNU version of the uname application? If the standard uname does not even mention the -o option and does not refer OS as kernel, like GNU version. Why can not logical person notice the mistake? You can check the uname options from any other Unix system what has not using GNU uname and you notice they follow only the IEEE standard functions and the uname prints always the OS name. Not name of the kernel. But when you use the GNU version of uname, it has changed explanations and added -o function what is not part of the IEEE standard. We do not need some kind person writting on the blogs or academic text to tell the same thing what everyone can notice when comparing IEEE standard uname and GNU version of uname. It is simple as that. And to be a dictionary, it is need to be a informative that GNU is not following IEEE standard. Thats why there was left the GNU version and explanation how it differs and WHY it is different. If we just remove GNU from the whole article, it is not again the truth but half of it and it causes that some people again "repairs" it to GNU version. If we check the opengroup, what maintains the standard of uname http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/uname.html or any other site what follows the IEEE standard http://www.squarebox.co.uk/cgi-squarebox/manServer/usr/share/man/man1p/uname.1p#3 and http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/uname.1.html and then we compare the IEEE standard to GNU's own official uname version http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/uname-invocation.html anyone can clearly see that how it has changed to support GNU's own GNU/Linux propaganda (and it is propaganda, not mistake or similar). And you can find more history about RMS own fame chase with history http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz/msg21956.html As everyone can see, the status quo of article supports the GNU own ideology, not the IEEE standard what everyone else supports. If we can not even use use the standards on the article but the twisted versions, the article has no truth at all and so on no meaning. Question is, is the IEEE version correct or is the GNU correct? I say we need to use IEEE version as base because it is the standard and truth. But include the GNU release (as I did) to tell the people how the GNU version of uname is different and what is it's goals with it. Golftheman (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Both are correct. The GNU version is clearly not an implementation of the specification defined by the open group but a similar one (enhanced, I'd say) -- there is a clear explanation as to -why- the -o option is needed and why it is not in the open group specification: the open group assumes that the kernel and the operating system are impossible to separate in any meaningful way and that by knowing which kernel or operating system a system is running on you automatically can assume something about the other. For the GNU operating systems this is not true. For operating systems using Linux, this is not true. For operating systems using the BSD kernel this is not true. And so on. The reality is that the open group specification is ancient and has not kept up with how operating systems work. The only sane thing that the FSF can do in such a situation is to keep their implementation as close to the "correct" behaviour as is feasible while also making the needed changes. I believe that the GNU version of uname does just that. 80.162.60.16 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: I find that the discussion section has more useful information about the various uname implementations than the main article -- I also think that the table provided is mostly useless as it is little more than a table of example outputs on various hardware and software combinations:
I propose that a rewrite be done with focus on the uname implementaions; GNU has one implementation, Apple another, AIX a third and so on; make a tables which provides information about what information each implementation provides on a given hardware platform and one for software platforms (kernels, operating systems).
For example, a (minimal) table for the hardware side could be:
Processor                	GNU    	Apple
Intel Core 2 Duo (64 bit)	x86_64 	x86_64
PowerPC                  	PowerPC	PowerPC
(the precision of the above table is irrelevant).
An equivelant for kernels:
Kernel	GNU   	Apple
Linux 	Linux 	N/A
XNU   	Darwin	Darwin
Again the precision is irrelevant; this is just for illustrative purposes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.60.16 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewrite 

message: As long as people post results that have been collected with third party software like GNU uname, the table is useless. Please use only the official software to post results. Schily (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low quality of table values 

message: For the invalid editing reason See MOS:LINUX. GNU/Linux is not a name that is used on Wikipedia of a recent edit.
Saying I have the following example from an operating system:
$ uname -a
Linux am335x 3.2.0 #568 Sat Jun 3 14:54:59 CST 2017 armv7l GNU/Linux
$ uname -m
armv7l
$ uname -o
GNU/Linux
Someone said "No! the name GNU/Linux shouldn't be used on Wikipedia", and going to alter the original program outout; wasn't this behavior sounds crazy?
Low power (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop faking command outputs