IRIX Questions - SGI

This is a discussion on IRIX Questions - SGI ; Can anyone tell me how to determine the IRIX release version installed on a system? The "uname" command returns IRIX 6.5 but I installed IRIX 6.5.9 (first installed 6.5 then the 6.5.9 overlays). Is the uname the correct command? If ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: IRIX Questions

  1. IRIX Questions

    Can anyone tell me how to determine the IRIX release version installed
    on a system? The "uname" command returns IRIX 6.5 but I installed IRIX
    6.5.9 (first installed 6.5 then the 6.5.9 overlays). Is the uname the
    correct command? If not what is? If so apparently I've done something
    wrong.

    Also, can anyone point me to a resource regarding the various IRIX
    versions? IRIX seems to have gone through a change in versioning. SGI
    appears to have gone from a big version number scheme (i.e. 5.3, 6.2,
    6.5) to small version number scheme (i.e 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, etc). Can
    anyone tell me where I can learn about the the differences in the 6.5.x
    numbering scheme?

    Thanks...Josh

  2. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:16:28 GMT, Josh McKee wrote:
    > Can anyone tell me how to determine the IRIX release version installed
    > on a system? The "uname" command returns IRIX 6.5 but I installed IRIX
    > 6.5.9 (first installed 6.5 then the 6.5.9 overlays). Is the uname the
    > correct command? If not what is? If so apparently I've done something
    > wrong.


    uname -R

    > Also, can anyone point me to a resource regarding the various IRIX
    > versions? IRIX seems to have gone through a change in versioning. SGI
    > appears to have gone from a big version number scheme (i.e. 5.3, 6.2,
    > 6.5) to small version number scheme (i.e 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, etc). Can
    > anyone tell me where I can learn about the the differences in the 6.5.x
    > numbering scheme?


    They slowed down on enchangements and feature changes.
    Anyway http://techpubs.sgi.com

    --
    __/ __, wave++ "Yuri D'Elia" http://www.yuv.info/
    / \__/ \ HPC and Engineering: bringing BITs to life!
    \__/ \_ WARNING: the email address is fake.

  3. Re: IRIX Questions

    "Josh McKee" wrote in message
    news:jtmckee-60E2C1.18162810072004@netnews.comcast.net...
    > Can anyone tell me how to determine the IRIX release version installed
    > on a system? The "uname" command returns IRIX 6.5 but I installed IRIX
    > 6.5.9 (first installed 6.5 then the 6.5.9 overlays). Is the uname the
    > correct command? If not what is? If so apparently I've done something
    > wrong.
    >
    > Also, can anyone point me to a resource regarding the various IRIX
    > versions? IRIX seems to have gone through a change in versioning. SGI
    > appears to have gone from a big version number scheme (i.e. 5.3, 6.2,
    > 6.5) to small version number scheme (i.e 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, etc). Can
    > anyone tell me where I can learn about the the differences in the 6.5.x
    > numbering scheme?
    >

    The first thing you need to do is learn to use the manpages -- the *NIX
    built-in help system. Generally you can type
    man {command}
    where {command} is the name of a program [or sometimes a feature] to get a
    good summary of the command/feature.

    If you had done
    man uname
    you'd have found out that
    uname -a
    would get you a[ll] information available including the OS revision number.

    The second thing you need to do is to learn some more about *NIX in general
    and IRIX in particular. There are literally hundreds of books that purport
    to teach you both the basics and the "tricks". If you have a favorite
    computer book series, then look for a *NIX in that series. Otherwise I'm
    sure that others will jump in to suggest a few. [My tastes are generally
    very idiosyncratic and tend to the obscure so I won't even pretend to
    recommend a beginner's book].

    Also, if you've installed IRIX, you also have megabytes of SGI's on-line
    books. Most of these are aimed at users with a modicum of knowledge about
    the basics of *NIX OS and may or may not be right for you. But try to use a
    few.

    BTW, *NIX is the term for a generic UNIX-like system

    Norm


  4. Re: IRIX Questions

    In article ,
    "Norm Dresner" wrote:

    > "Josh McKee" wrote in message
    > news:jtmckee-60E2C1.18162810072004@netnews.comcast.net...
    > > Can anyone tell me how to determine the IRIX release version installed
    > > on a system? The "uname" command returns IRIX 6.5 but I installed IRIX
    > > 6.5.9 (first installed 6.5 then the 6.5.9 overlays). Is the uname the
    > > correct command? If not what is? If so apparently I've done something
    > > wrong.
    > >
    > > Also, can anyone point me to a resource regarding the various IRIX
    > > versions? IRIX seems to have gone through a change in versioning. SGI
    > > appears to have gone from a big version number scheme (i.e. 5.3, 6.2,
    > > 6.5) to small version number scheme (i.e 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, etc). Can
    > > anyone tell me where I can learn about the the differences in the 6.5.x
    > > numbering scheme?
    > >

    > The first thing you need to do is learn to use the manpages -- the *NIX
    > built-in help system. Generally you can type
    > man {command}
    > where {command} is the name of a program [or sometimes a feature] to get a
    > good summary of the command/feature.


    I'm very well versed in UNIX...just not IRIX.

    >
    > If you had done
    > man uname
    > you'd have found out that
    > uname -a
    > would get you a[ll] information available including the OS revision number.


    uname -a does not report IRIX 6.5.9. Therefore I concluded:

    1. I'm using the wrong command as IRIX doesn't report the minor number.
    2. I did something wrong.

    > The second thing you need to do is to learn some more about *NIX in general
    > and IRIX in particular.


    I have much to learn about IRIX. UNIX is old hat to me. I fail to see
    how my post gave the impression that I was not UNIX savvy.

    Anyway I'd much rather you not respond than respond in a condescending
    manner.

    Josh

    > There are literally hundreds of books that purport
    > to teach you both the basics and the "tricks". If you have a favorite
    > computer book series, then look for a *NIX in that series. Otherwise I'm
    > sure that others will jump in to suggest a few. [My tastes are generally
    > very idiosyncratic and tend to the obscure so I won't even pretend to
    > recommend a beginner's book].
    >
    > Also, if you've installed IRIX, you also have megabytes of SGI's on-line
    > books. Most of these are aimed at users with a modicum of knowledge about
    > the basics of *NIX OS and may or may not be right for you. But try to use a
    > few.
    >
    > BTW, *NIX is the term for a generic UNIX-like system
    >
    > Norm


  5. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Norm Dresner" wrote:

    >If you had done
    > man uname
    >you'd have found out that
    > uname -a
    >would get you a[ll] information available including the OS revision number.


    Actually if you'd done 'man uname' you'd have found out that one of the things
    -a doesn't do is report the extended release name

    As wave++ points out, uname -R is what's required.

    In fact uname -aR does the job rather nicely.


  6. Re: IRIX Questions

    Josh McKee wrote:

    > I have much to learn about IRIX. UNIX is old hat to me. I fail to see
    > how my post gave the impression that I was not UNIX savvy.


    Because you asked a question that even a new UNIX user could answer for
    themselves.

    Regards,

    --
    #include
    Christopher Miller
    cm007i@hotmail.com

  7. Re: IRIX Questions

    > I'm very well versed in UNIX...just not IRIX.
    ....
    > I have much to learn about IRIX. UNIX is old hat to me. I fail to see
    > how my post gave the impression that I was not UNIX savvy.


    Well, I don't mean to condescend, but any seasoned UNIX administrator would
    first do `man uname`, or generally look it up in the man pages.
    I would think that the same goes for "very well versed" UNIX users.



  8. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:59:53 GMT, "<<>>" wrote:

    >Josh McKee wrote:
    >
    >> I have much to learn about IRIX. UNIX is old hat to me. I fail to see
    >> how my post gave the impression that I was not UNIX savvy.

    >
    >Because you asked a question that even a new UNIX user could answer for
    >themselves.


    Apparently not as the "expert" who chastised me didn't have the answer
    either. He gave me the exact command that I had already tried.

    Josh

  9. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:07:27 +0200, "UNIX admin"
    wrote:

    >> I'm very well versed in UNIX...just not IRIX.

    >...
    >> I have much to learn about IRIX. UNIX is old hat to me. I fail to see
    >> how my post gave the impression that I was not UNIX savvy.

    >
    >Well, I don't mean to condescend, but any seasoned UNIX administrator would
    >first do `man uname`, or generally look it up in the man pages.
    >I would think that the same goes for "very well versed" UNIX users.


    "uname -a" on other versions of UNIX give the complete version:

    jtmckee@jato$ uname -a
    SunOS jato 5.9 Generic_112233-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise

    Since I installed IRIX 6.5 and uname -a returned IRIX 6.5 I had no
    reason to suspect that there was an additional option to get the 6.5.9
    minor version. I assumed, being inexperienced with IRIX, that I hadn't
    properly installed the overlay.

    So get off your high horse. The behavior in IRIX is different than
    other versions of UNIX. The returned result of "uname -a" system was
    exactly what I would have expected for the initial version of IRIX
    that I installed.

    Josh

  10. Re: IRIX Questions

    > "uname -a" on other versions of UNIX give the complete version:
    >
    > jtmckee@jato$ uname -a
    > SunOS jato 5.9 Generic_112233-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise


    I truly wish that were so!
    Unfortunately, you're busted once again:

    Linux hostname 2.4.9-32 #1 Fri Jun 7 19:00:17 EDT 2002 alpha unknown

    Tell me, does this look like the "complete version" to you?
    Looking at the output of `uname -a` on this system, one has no idea what it
    is.
    We only know for sure that it's some kind of a Linux system running the
    2.4.9 kernel, and it's either running on the alpha architecture, or its CPU
    is an alpha.
    But there's no way for us to know that! The only thing we can do is `man
    uname` and try to figure out which column references what.

    `uname -p` returns "unknown" even though `uname -m` reported "alpha" (even
    if they didn't know the exact CPU type, they could have at least stuck
    "alpha" in).
    In reality, this is a RedHat 7.3 system running on an alpha architecture
    with an alpha CPU (DUH, but it doesn't even say that!)
    The point is -- nowhere does it say that in the output of `uname -a`.

    If UNIX is "old hat" to you, as you write, you would know better; you would
    know that `uname` behaves as differently as the flavor and arch it's running
    on. This is an age old problem. So the first thing any seasoned UNIX admin
    or user worth his salt would do is `man uname` to try and figure out what
    the hell does the output really tell him.

    > Since I installed IRIX 6.5 and uname -a returned IRIX 6.5 I had no
    > reason to suspect that there was an additional option to get the 6.5.9
    > minor version. I assumed, being inexperienced with IRIX, that I hadn't
    > properly installed the overlay.


    Another mistake a "very well versed" UNIX admin or user would never do:
    ASSUME.
    One of the fundamental rules of good system administration is:
    ASSUME NOTHING UNLESS YOU HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE.

    > So get off your high horse. The behavior in IRIX is different than
    > other versions of UNIX. The returned result of "uname -a" system was
    > exactly what I would have expected for the initial version of IRIX
    > that I installed.


    No, actually the `uname` behavior is consistent with other versions of UNIX
    in that it has its own quirks, just like *any* `uname` on *any* UNIX out
    there.

    How many different UNIXes are you actually intimately familiar with?
    Doesn't look like many when you don't know these basic quirks. And that
    would be fine, because very few people do, except that you claim to be "very
    well versed" and yet don't seem to be aware of some basic facts of UNIX.



  11. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:42:04 +0200, "UNIX admin"
    wrote:

    >> "uname -a" on other versions of UNIX give the complete version:
    >>
    >> jtmckee@jato$ uname -a
    >> SunOS jato 5.9 Generic_112233-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise

    >
    >I truly wish that were so!
    >Unfortunately, you're busted once again:
    >
    >Linux hostname 2.4.9-32 #1 Fri Jun 7 19:00:17 EDT 2002 alpha unknown
    >
    >Tell me, does this look like the "complete version" to you?
    >Looking at the output of `uname -a` on this system, one has no idea what it
    >is.
    >We only know for sure that it's some kind of a Linux system running the
    >2.4.9 kernel, and it's either running on the alpha architecture, or its CPU
    >is an alpha.
    >But there's no way for us to know that! The only thing we can do is `man
    >uname` and try to figure out which column references what.
    >
    >`uname -p` returns "unknown" even though `uname -m` reported "alpha" (even
    >if they didn't know the exact CPU type, they could have at least stuck
    >"alpha" in).
    >In reality, this is a RedHat 7.3 system running on an alpha architecture
    >with an alpha CPU (DUH, but it doesn't even say that!)
    >The point is -- nowhere does it say that in the output of `uname -a`.
    >
    >If UNIX is "old hat" to you, as you write, you would know better; you would
    >know that `uname` behaves as differently as the flavor and arch it's running
    >on. This is an age old problem. So the first thing any seasoned UNIX admin
    >or user worth his salt would do is `man uname` to try and figure out what
    >the hell does the output really tell him.
    >
    >> Since I installed IRIX 6.5 and uname -a returned IRIX 6.5 I had no
    >> reason to suspect that there was an additional option to get the 6.5.9
    >> minor version. I assumed, being inexperienced with IRIX, that I hadn't
    >> properly installed the overlay.

    >
    >Another mistake a "very well versed" UNIX admin or user would never do:
    >ASSUME.
    >One of the fundamental rules of good system administration is:
    >ASSUME NOTHING UNLESS YOU HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE.


    Why the big deal over this? I ask a simple question and all hell
    breaks loose? Are you guys so damn insecure with yourselves that you
    have to belittle people?

    I am very well versed in UNIX. You're welcome to believe that or not.
    I don't care as I have nothing to prove to you guys. I am, however,
    not very well versed in IRIX.

    I think I had sufficient reason to believe that uname -a was returning
    all the version information:

    1. I installed IRIX version 6.5
    2. The system displays "6.5" when it boots.
    3. "uname -a", on other platforms, displays the entire release number.
    4. I'm new to IRIX and installing overlays is a concept that I have
    little experience with.

    Granted I didn't spend a lot of time on it. It wasn't that important
    to me.

    You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. There was no need for
    the response I initially and subsequently received. I can only assume
    that you are so insecure with yourselves that attempting to belittle
    people is your only form of feeling good about yourselves.

    Grow up.

    Josh

    >> So get off your high horse. The behavior in IRIX is different than
    >> other versions of UNIX. The returned result of "uname -a" system was
    >> exactly what I would have expected for the initial version of IRIX
    >> that I installed.

    >
    >No, actually the `uname` behavior is consistent with other versions of UNIX
    >in that it has its own quirks, just like *any* `uname` on *any* UNIX out
    >there.
    >
    >How many different UNIXes are you actually intimately familiar with?
    >Doesn't look like many when you don't know these basic quirks. And that
    >would be fine, because very few people do, except that you claim to be "very
    >well versed" and yet don't seem to be aware of some basic facts of UNIX.



  12. Re: IRIX Questions

    In article ,
    Josh McKee wrote:

    > Why the big deal over this? I ask a simple question and all hell
    > breaks loose? Are you guys so damn insecure with yourselves that you
    > have to belittle people?
    >
    > I am very well versed in UNIX. You're welcome to believe that or not.
    > I don't care as I have nothing to prove to you guys. I am, however,
    > not very well versed in IRIX.
    >
    > I think I had sufficient reason to believe that uname -a was returning
    > all the version information:


    I have been working with Linux, various BSDs, and Solaris for over 10
    years. Recently, I started working with various SGIs. I had a need to
    determine the exact system version running on the boxes. Much like you,
    I tried "uname -a" expecting to get the info I wanted. When I didn't, I
    tried "man uname" and found that I needed the "-R" parameter.

    I could flame you for not being as smart as me, but that would ignore
    all the times in my life (including several in the past week), when I
    haven't been as clever as I like to think I am. UNIX is simply too
    complicated, especially in all its incarnations, for any of us to know
    everything about it. Many times I have been able to offer pointers to
    admins much more experienced than me, and many times pure newbies have
    pointed out something of which I wasn't aware.

    Clearly, if you know enough to try "uname -a", you are aware of the
    "man" command. In this case, preconceived notions may have caused you
    not to put your knowledge of the "man" command to work, but who among us
    has not suffered a brain fart? Frankly, I believe there is much less
    shame in posting a question such as yours, then replying to such a
    message with several paragraphs about how to use "man", but not actually
    answering your question.


  13. Re: IRIX Questions

    > Why the big deal over this? I ask a simple question and all hell
    > breaks loose? Are you guys so damn insecure with yourselves that you
    > have to belittle people?
    >
    > I am very well versed in UNIX. You're welcome to believe that or not.
    > I don't care as I have nothing to prove to you guys. I am, however,
    > not very well versed in IRIX.


    Because you asked a *very simple question* that you could have easily
    answered yourself if you were so "very well versed".
    It showed lack of experience, which is OK (really), but what made it *not
    OK* was the fact you kept pounding how you know UNIX really well.
    Apparently you have some holes in the basics, so I would be a little more
    humble next time.

    > I think I had sufficient reason to believe that uname -a was returning
    > all the version information:
    >
    > 1. I installed IRIX version 6.5
    > 2. The system displays "6.5" when it boots.


    That's right, because at that point it *is* 6.5. So it functioned
    correctly.

    > 3. "uname -a", on other platforms, displays the entire release number.


    NO IT DOES NOT! We just went over that, and I had clearly illustrated to
    you that is not the case.
    You're not paying attention to detail.

    > 4. I'm new to IRIX and installing overlays is a concept that I have
    > little experience with.


    Here's a primer: in its most rudimentary form, you could think of overlays
    as patches.
    Now there is a difference between overlay streams and products marked as
    "new" in the feature stream, but that's a story for another day.
    Instead of patch revisions, SGI decided they were gonna just up the minor
    release number, plus if you're on a feature stream, there may be new
    software products on the overlay CDs.

    > Granted I didn't spend a lot of time on it. It wasn't that important
    > to me.


    That's too bad, bearing in mind that IRIX 6.5.x is the most advanced and
    powerful UNIX ever created.

    > You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. There was no need for
    > the response I initially and subsequently received. I can only assume
    > that you are so insecure with yourselves that attempting to belittle
    > people is your only form of feeling good about yourselves.
    >
    > Grow up.


    Just toot your own horn a little less in the future, and *do try* to use
    those man pages, and we cool.

    > >How many different UNIXes are you actually intimately familiar with?


    I couldn't help but notice how you skipped this question.



  14. Re: IRIX Questions

    > Clearly, if you know enough to try "uname -a", you are aware of the
    > "man" command. In this case, preconceived notions may have caused you
    > not to put your knowledge of the "man" command to work, but who among us
    > has not suffered a brain fart? Frankly, I believe there is much less
    > shame in posting a question such as yours, then replying to such a
    > message with several paragraphs about how to use "man", but not actually
    > answering your question.


    The question has been correctly answered more than once before any reactions
    took place.
    The answer is `uname -R`, or to be proactive, the answer to what he was
    *really asking* is
    `uname -aR`.

    Knowing where to look for information when you're dealing with UNIX is
    *extremely* important. I also read and write a lot on comp.unix.solaris and
    alt.solaris.x86 and it's unbelievable how many basic questions are asked
    there when a simple `man `, Google or a visit to
    http://docs.sun.com/ would have more than sufficed.

    So my stance has been "give 'em a fish - feed 'em for a day, teach 'em how
    to fish - feed 'em for a lifetime."

    It's one thing to ask for pointers in the mental process (for example "how
    do I..." or "what do I...") but completely another to not know how much you
    don't know, but think you know it.



  15. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:25:19 +0200, "UNIX admin"
    wrote:

    >> Why the big deal over this? I ask a simple question and all hell
    >> breaks loose? Are you guys so damn insecure with yourselves that you
    >> have to belittle people?
    >>
    >> I am very well versed in UNIX. You're welcome to believe that or not.
    >> I don't care as I have nothing to prove to you guys. I am, however,
    >> not very well versed in IRIX.

    >
    >Because you asked a *very simple question* that you could have easily
    >answered yourself if you were so "very well versed".
    >It showed lack of experience, which is OK (really), but what made it *not
    >OK* was the fact you kept pounding how you know UNIX really well.


    If thinking that I'm not well versed in UNIX is what allows you to
    sleep at night then so be it. You can continue to ignore what I have
    told you: That I am very well versed in UNIX.

    The fact that I didn't use the man page does not indicate my level of
    knowledge. As I said early: It wasn't that big a deal to me. I
    installed the OS, installed the overlays, performed the "uname -a"
    command and did not get the result I expected. That was it. The system
    was powered down and has remained off for the past two months. That
    was it, nothing more. Don't make it out to be anything more.

    >Apparently you have some holes in the basics, so I would be a little more
    >humble next time.


    Why should I have to be "humble"? Can't people just answer the
    question without having to be condescending? Wave++ did it, why
    couldn't Norm (especially when Norm himself gave the wrong answer)? Am
    I expect too much in asking a question without having someone feel the
    need to chastise me?

    >> I think I had sufficient reason to believe that uname -a was returning
    >> all the version information:
    >>
    >> 1. I installed IRIX version 6.5
    >> 2. The system displays "6.5" when it boots.

    >
    >That's right, because at that point it *is* 6.5. So it functioned
    >correctly.


    No, it's 6.5.9. A reasonable person would expect it to display 6.5.9.
    IRIX 5.3 displays "5.3". IRIX 6.2 displays "6.2". IRIX 6.5 displays
    "6.5". So it's reasonable to assume that IRIX 6.5.9 would display
    "6.5.9".

    >> 3. "uname -a", on other platforms, displays the entire release number.

    >
    >NO IT DOES NOT! We just went over that, and I had clearly illustrated to
    >you that is not the case.
    >You're not paying attention to detail.


    You're blathering.

    >> 4. I'm new to IRIX and installing overlays is a concept that I have
    >> little experience with.

    >
    >Here's a primer: in its most rudimentary form, you could think of overlays
    >as patches.


    Great. See the second question that I wrote. As I said I'm not well
    versed in IRIX. Thus I fail to see the need to chastise me for asking
    a simple question. Either answer it or ignore it. No need to add
    unwarranted insults.

    Josh

    >Now there is a difference between overlay streams and products marked as
    >"new" in the feature stream, but that's a story for another day.
    >Instead of patch revisions, SGI decided they were gonna just up the minor
    >release number, plus if you're on a feature stream, there may be new
    >software products on the overlay CDs.
    >
    >> Granted I didn't spend a lot of time on it. It wasn't that important
    >> to me.

    >
    >That's too bad, bearing in mind that IRIX 6.5.x is the most advanced and
    >powerful UNIX ever created.
    >
    >> You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. There was no need for
    >> the response I initially and subsequently received. I can only assume
    >> that you are so insecure with yourselves that attempting to belittle
    >> people is your only form of feeling good about yourselves.
    >>
    >> Grow up.

    >
    >Just toot your own horn a little less in the future, and *do try* to use
    >those man pages, and we cool.
    >
    >> >How many different UNIXes are you actually intimately familiar with?

    >
    >I couldn't help but notice how you skipped this question.
    >



  16. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:25:13 -0400, Jeff wrote:

    >In article ,
    > Josh McKee wrote:
    >
    >> Why the big deal over this? I ask a simple question and all hell
    >> breaks loose? Are you guys so damn insecure with yourselves that you
    >> have to belittle people?
    >>
    >> I am very well versed in UNIX. You're welcome to believe that or not.
    >> I don't care as I have nothing to prove to you guys. I am, however,
    >> not very well versed in IRIX.
    >>
    >> I think I had sufficient reason to believe that uname -a was returning
    >> all the version information:

    >
    >I have been working with Linux, various BSDs, and Solaris for over 10
    >years. Recently, I started working with various SGIs. I had a need to
    >determine the exact system version running on the boxes. Much like you,
    >I tried "uname -a" expecting to get the info I wanted. When I didn't, I
    >tried "man uname" and found that I needed the "-R" parameter.
    >
    >I could flame you for not being as smart as me, but that would ignore
    >all the times in my life (including several in the past week), when I
    >haven't been as clever as I like to think I am. UNIX is simply too
    >complicated, especially in all its incarnations, for any of us to know
    >everything about it. Many times I have been able to offer pointers to
    >admins much more experienced than me, and many times pure newbies have
    >pointed out something of which I wasn't aware.
    >
    >Clearly, if you know enough to try "uname -a", you are aware of the
    >"man" command.


    Not according to some around here :-)

    >In this case, preconceived notions may have caused you
    >not to put your knowledge of the "man" command to work, but who among us
    >has not suffered a brain fart?


    Apparently nobody here (aside from the two of us).

    >Frankly, I believe there is much less shame in posting a question such as yours,
    >then replying to such a message with several paragraphs about how to use "man",
    >but not actually answering your question.


    I didn't mind the recommendation to use man. After all I can
    understand how my question may have given the appearance of being a
    newbie to UNIX. It was the manner in which the advice (which itself
    was incorrect) was given.

    What's surprising is the insistence by some here that, despite knowing
    nothing about me, they claim that I know nothing about UNIX despite my
    being very well versed in it. From one question some have managed to
    conclude that I know nothing about UNIX. It's sad that they're this
    insecure with themselves.

    Josh

  17. Re: IRIX Questions

    On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:43:00 +0200, "UNIX admin"
    wrote:

    >> Clearly, if you know enough to try "uname -a", you are aware of the
    >> "man" command. In this case, preconceived notions may have caused you
    >> not to put your knowledge of the "man" command to work, but who among us
    >> has not suffered a brain fart? Frankly, I believe there is much less
    >> shame in posting a question such as yours, then replying to such a
    >> message with several paragraphs about how to use "man", but not actually
    >> answering your question.

    >
    >The question has been correctly answered more than once before any reactions
    >took place.
    >The answer is `uname -R`, or to be proactive, the answer to what he was
    >*really asking* is
    >`uname -aR`.
    >
    >Knowing where to look for information when you're dealing with UNIX is
    >*extremely* important. I also read and write a lot on comp.unix.solaris and
    >alt.solaris.x86 and it's unbelievable how many basic questions are asked
    >there when a simple `man `, Google or a visit to
    >http://docs.sun.com/ would have more than sufficed.
    >
    >So my stance has been "give 'em a fish - feed 'em for a day, teach 'em how
    >to fish - feed 'em for a lifetime."
    >
    >It's one thing to ask for pointers in the mental process (for example "how
    >do I..." or "what do I...") but completely another to not know how much you
    >don't know, but think you know it.


    And you've reached this conclusion based on one question? You need to
    see someone about your insecurity. You superiority complex needs to be
    addressed.

    Josh

  18. Re: IRIX Questions

    Josh McKee wrote:

    > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:25:19 +0200, "UNIX admin"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >You're not paying attention to detail.

    >
    > You're blathering.
    >


    now, this is what usenet is really all about. glad we finally got to the
    point.




  19. Re: IRIX Questions

    > And you've reached this conclusion based on one question? You need to
    > see someone about your insecurity. You superiority complex needs to be
    > addressed.


    Incorrect. I've reached this conclusion based on bold and brash statements
    by the one who has asked it.
    The road to greatness is through humbleness.

    I would never even think of asking a newbie question and claiming that I'm
    the expert at the same time. When I asked questions on
    comp.unix.freebsd.misc, I did my homework first, so noone could say "RTFM";
    I poured over all the available docs and did my research online as well. I
    have at least that much experience to avoid asking the same basic things
    that people ask over and over. It just shows one is lazy and wants instant
    gratification without putting the work into it, and that tends to piss
    people off (especially on a *BSD newsgroup, where people are really quirky).



  20. Re: IRIX Questions

    In article <40fa4898$0$1962$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
    "UNIX admin" wrote:

    > > And you've reached this conclusion based on one question? You need to
    > > see someone about your insecurity. You superiority complex needs to be
    > > addressed.

    >
    > Incorrect. I've reached this conclusion based on bold and brash statements
    > by the one who has asked it.


    You reached this conclusion based on what you want to believe.

    > The road to greatness is through humbleness.
    >
    > I would never even think of asking a newbie question and claiming that I'm
    > the expert at the same time.


    That's because you're incapable of viewing a situation differently than
    what you've assumed it to be. You're assuming things...and we already
    know your position on assumptions.

    I already said this:

    1. I installed IRIX 6.5
    2. I started the system and it indicated that IRIX 6.5 was installed.
    3. I installed the IRIX 6.5.9 overlays.
    4. I started the system and it indicated that IRIX 6.5, not IRIX 6.5.9,
    was installed.
    5. Curious about the startup version indicated I used "uname -a" to
    check the version. IRIX 6.5 was returned.

    Since IRIX 6.5 was returned I assumed that I had not properly installed
    the overlays. Not having the time to investigate further I powered down
    the system, packed it up, and it hasn't been turned on since. That was
    two months ago. A few days ago when reading through the newsgroups I
    decided to ask my questions. That's it. Don't make it out to be more
    than it is to stroke your ego. Grow up and get some help about that
    superiority complex you have.

    Josh

    > When I asked questions on comp.unix.freebsd.misc, I did my homework first, so
    > noone could say "RTFM";I poured over all the available docs and did my research online as well. I
    > have at least that much experience to avoid asking the same basic things
    > that people ask over and over. It just shows one is lazy and wants instant
    > gratification without putting the work into it, and that tends to piss
    > people off (especially on a *BSD newsgroup, where people are really quirky).


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast