> >Every time I accidentally execute `uname` with an -a instead of >a -r, I am reminded of the history rewrite as I am presented with: > >Linux chaos.analogic.com 2.6.16.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT > Wed Jul 12 11:32:34 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux > ^^^^^^^^^ Do you even know what that field is supposed to be? Right, it is `uname -o`, and not `uname -s`. Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Sergey Panov <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Chase Venters <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Theodore Tso <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Chase Venters <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: "Patrick McFarland" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- GPLv3 Position Statement
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Don't leak 'old_class_name' in drivers/base/core.c::device_rename()
- Next by Date: [RFC][PATCH] Task watchers and modules (WAS Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction)
- Previous by thread: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- Next by thread: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
- Index(es):
 |