It is a very well established convention that words represent what they mean, and their description is found in a good dictionary. If you change the meaning of a word, in a dictionary of your own, the rest of the world will not understand what you say.
hostname is a very well established word in official industry standards, and it does not mean "this is where you write the configuration of network interfaces". Forcing a slang in your tribe just makes you look exactly what you are: a minority that requires a linguistic overhead and a lot of patience.
-------- Original Message --------
On 4/8/25 09:55, Michael Hekeler <michael@hekeler.com> wrote:
> > You think of hostname, look for /etc/hostname, and find something unrelated.
> > The file /etc/hostname does not exist.
> > The files /etc/hostname.if do exist, but have nothing to do with the host name.
> > By comparison, in linux /etc/hostname exists and serves the intended purpose.
> > This is not intuitive.
> > To understand where the host name is written in OpenBSD, you need to read hostname(1).
> > According to hostname(1) and /etc/rc, the file /etc/myname is responsible for holding the name of a host.
> > Why diverging from intuition?
>
> There is no such thing like an "intuition".
> The hostname persists within a data structure in the kernel,
> while the system is running. During a system's boot this information can
> be reattained through a variety of mechanisms that is typically OS
> specific.
> Whether an OS saves this name in a variable in /etc/rc.config.d/netconf
> or somewhere else is not important - any persistance mechanism is only
> read once at boot time to initialize the kernel hostname.
>
> Linux people decided to invent a file called /etc/hostname which YOU think
> its intuitive
> According to uname(3) this string is named 'nodename' and thats why I
> think Sun OS's /etc/nodename was the most intuitive.
> So we have two definitions of intuitive now - who will win?
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment