hardware scan
msw...@my-deja.com
i am looking for a hardware scan tool for sco like ioscan for HP-UX.
thanks,
saani
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ian Peattie
>Hi,
>i am looking for a hardware scan tool for sco like ioscan for HP-UX.
Which version of 'sco'? 'uname -X' will tell you - look for the line starting
"Release=".
What does ioscan do?
Ian.
--
Ian Peattie i...@john-richard.co.uk
Edinburgh, Scotland.
msw...@my-deja.com
3.2v5.0.5
ioscan in hpux scans hardware for devices like (interface cards,
memory, processor) and reports the results. also shows whether proper
drivers are configured for the devices. i am looking for something
similar in sco to get a quick check for all connected hardware.
saani
In article <93k0kd$5n8$1...@odin.john-richard.co.uk>,
Ian Peattie
>The release line is
>3.2v5.0.5
>
>ioscan in hpux scans hardware for devices like (interface cards,
>memory, processor) and reports the results. also shows whether proper
>drivers are configured for the devices. i am looking for something
>similar in sco to get a quick check for all connected hardware.
5.0.5 comes with the 'hw' command, which will give you a report of your
system's hardware. Try 'hw -m'. You'll need to be logged in as root to get
full information.
'man hw' for more info.
Tony Lawrence
>
> Hi,
> i am looking for a hardware scan tool for sco like ioscan for HP-UX.
hw -v and sconf -v are probably what you want.
--
Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com)
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
Jean-Pierre Radley
| msw...@my-deja.com wrote:
| >
| > i am looking for a hardware scan tool for sco like ioscan for HP-UX.
|
| hw -v and sconf -v are probably what you want.
You usually want to do hw -mv instead of hw -v.
--
JP
Tony Lawrence
Programs shouldn't have such flags. It's Un-Unixy. Moreover, it
leads the great unwashed to expect the flag EVERYWHERE, which
only leads them to bitter disappointment, followed by deep
depression and subsequent reliance on Microsoft products.
The beautiful philosophy of cooperative tools through stdout and
stdin is sullied by this. The person responsible should be
banned from programming on Unix platforms for at least six
months. Also, whoever allowed that to be documented in "man"
should be fined at least $500.00 and shunned for a six week
period by all true believers.
This is just my personal opinion, of course, but I bet Dennis
Ritchie et al. would agree wholeheartedly.
Therefore, I assure you that not only do I NOT "usually want to
do hw -mv", I will not be recommending such abomination to anyone
else either.
Now go repent your sin :-)
Jean-Pierre Radley
| Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
| >
| > You usually want to do hw -mv instead of hw -v.
|
| Programs shouldn't have such flags. It's Un-Unixy. Moreover, it
| leads the great unwashed to expect the flag EVERYWHERE, which
| only leads them to bitter disappointment, followed by deep
| depression and subsequent reliance on Microsoft products.
Can I fairly infer from that stance that you have trained yourself never
to type 'l' on an SCO Xenix/Unix machine, always preferring 'ls -l'?
Do you always pipe the output of 'sort' to 'uniq' rather than use
the '-u' option of 'sort'?
It *may* be Un-Unixy. Let's not have a religious argument, we might be
dealing with the cranial input from eye of the beholder. :-)
Being Unixy also means being practical; I use the available tools as
they are given to me.
Here's another instance where I am happy to type a shorter command:
using 'less' to examine a file which has been compressed, gzipped,
or bzip2-ed.
Old way:
zcat file.gz | less
New way:
create a little script:
#!/bin/ksh
#@(#)/usr/local/bin/lessopen
case "$1" in
*.gz|*.tgz|*.Z) zcat $1 2>/dev/null ;;
*.bz2|*.tb2) bzcat $1 2>/dev/null ;;
esac
LESSOPEN='|lessopen %s' export LESSOPEN
Then this works:
less file.gz
--
JP
Tony Lawrence
>
> Tony Lawrence propounded (on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:24:35PM -0500):
> | Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
> | >
> | > You usually want to do hw -mv instead of hw -v.
> |
> | Programs shouldn't have such flags. It's Un-Unixy. Moreover, it
> | leads the great unwashed to expect the flag EVERYWHERE, which
> | only leads them to bitter disappointment, followed by deep
> | depression and subsequent reliance on Microsoft products.
>
> Can I fairly infer from that stance that you have trained yourself never
> to type 'l' on an SCO Xenix/Unix machine, always preferring 'ls -l'?
Entirely different concept.
> It *may* be Un-Unixy. Let's not have a religious argument, we might be
> dealing with the cranial input from eye of the beholder. :-)
Oh come on- where's the fun of life without a good religious
argument now and then?
My Unix god can beat up your god AND still get home in time for
supper. Dennis Ritchie will die for your sins, but he has more
OS work to do first. We demand the right to run scripts at
football games, and to install RAID arrays in public parks.
There shall be a national day of mourning in 2010.
>
> Being Unixy also means being practical; I use the available tools as
> they are given to me.
But seriously: adding a pager flag is ridiculous. The only place
PAGER itself makes any sense is within programs like "mail" where
you want to call your favorite pager WITHIN another program.
Adding such a flag to "hw" is, well, stupid. I'm not saying you
shouldn't continue to use it: if it's there and it pleases you,
go ahead. But it never should have been there, or the
alternative is to add a similar flag to every other command:
unnecesary, ridiculous, dumb :-)
Jim Richardson
Tony Lawrence <to...@aplawrence.com> wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
> >
> > Tony Lawrence propounded (on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:24:35PM -0500):
> > | Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
> > | >
> > | > You usually want to do hw -mv instead of hw -v.
> > |
> > | Programs shouldn't have such flags. It's Un-Unixy. Moreover, it
> > | leads the great unwashed to expect the flag EVERYWHERE, which
> > | only leads them to bitter disappointment, followed by deep
> > | depression and subsequent reliance on Microsoft products.
> >
> > Can I fairly infer from that stance that you have trained yourself
never
> > to type 'l' on an SCO Xenix/Unix machine, always preferring 'ls -l'?
>
> Entirely different concept.
>
> > It *may* be Un-Unixy. Let's not have a religious argument, we
might be
> > dealing with the cranial input from eye of the beholder. :-)
>
> Oh come on- where's the fun of life without a good religious
> argument now and then?
>
> My Unix god can beat up your god AND still get home in time for
> supper. Dennis Ritchie will die for your sins, but he has more
> OS work to do first. We demand the right to run scripts at
> football games, and to install RAID arrays in public parks.
> There shall be a national day of mourning in 2010.
>
Tony....
Your Unix God IS his Unix God.
Reminds me of a conversation overheard some years ago in California.
Two kids arguing. One says "My dad can beat your dad".
Short silence.
"I thought your dad WAS my dad?"
> >
> > Being Unixy also means being practical; I use the available tools as
> > they are given to me.
>
> But seriously: adding a pager flag is ridiculous. The only place
> PAGER itself makes any sense is within programs like "mail" where
> you want to call your favorite pager WITHIN another program.
> Adding such a flag to "hw" is, well, stupid. I'm not saying you
> shouldn't continue to use it: if it's there and it pleases you,
> go ahead. But it never should have been there, or the
> alternative is to add a similar flag to every other command:
> unnecesary, ridiculous, dumb :-)
>
> --
> Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com)
> SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
> job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
>
--
Jim Richardson
I like NT because it constantly reminds me of my daughter.
"Honest Daddy, I wasn't doing anything and it just broke."