[NTLUG:Discuss] Redhat9 - hostid doesn't work

[Chris Cox]

Steve Martindell wrote:
> I just installed Redhat9 and requested everything on
> the CD(s).
> 
> When I type hostid it returns nothing!
> ---------------------------------------------------
> [stevem at x1-6-00-10-b5-3a-b3-22 ~]$ hostid
> 0
> [stevem at x1-6-00-10-b5-3a-b3-22 ~]$ which hostid
> /usr/bin/hostid
> [stevem at x1-6-00-10-b5-3a-b3-22 ~]$ uname -a
> Linux x1-6-00-10-b5-3a-b3-22 2.4.20-6 #1 Thu Feb 27 10:01:19 EST 2003 
> i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> When I reboot same computer into SuSE hostid works properly.

Do you really need hostid??  Just curious.  I wouldn't count
on it.

With that said, RH9 has many, many problems (not everyone
will experience these btw):

1. Won't install at all on Compaq DL380G2/G3 boxes.
(well you have to create a fs first and copy the cds
to it in order to install).  RH8 and earlier do not
have any problems with this platform (which is
considered to be the #1 2U unit in the world today).

2. Many installs fail on CD2, forever claiming that
CD2 isn't inserted.  Have seen this both in VMware
and outside of VMware.  Just plain weird.  You can
use the technique in 1 as a workaround.

3. RH's networking scripts are very bad.  Make way too
many assumptions and use tools that are known to make
mistakes.   Result is either, no network detected,
no dhcp-dns registration, or a very confused network
setup.  This is probably the most frustrating of them
all.  RH relies on things like mii-diag to see if
the data link as been established.  I estimate mii-diag
to work ok on about 50% of all network cards (maybe
less than that).  In a dhcp environment, establishing
the presence of the "link light" should probably
just be a warning if done at all.

4. UTF-8 ... nuff said (same as in RH8).

5. Lack of various tools because they might cause
some legal issues (emphasis on might).  Granted
RH could be considered the "safe" distribution.  I've
never been a big fan of technology that tries to
be "safe" though.  Most of the tools are things like
mp3/decss related software.... though other dists
also have some difficulties here.

> 
> ---
> 
> Also, the default path in Redhat doesn't have "compress/uncompress" !?
> -----------------------------------------------------
> [stevem at x1-6-00-10-b5-3a-b3-22 ~]$ uncompress
> compress: Command not found.
> [stevem at x1-6-00-10-b5-3a-b3-22 ~]$ echo $path
> /usr/local/bin /usr/bin /bin /usr/X11R6/bin /usr/X11R6/bin
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> This makes it a little hard to install things!
> What's the deal with Redhat?

Ok.. I'll stand up for RH a bit here.  A pure compress routine
suffers from the LZW Unisys mess.  Uncompress is less of an issue...
but you may find it hard to get compress regardless of distribution
nowadays.  Since gzip has become the defacto cross-platform
standard on may Unix and even non-Unix platforms... I'd just
start using it.  However, if you have a compressed package,
gzip should be able to decompress it (so you can just alias
or symlink it if you want to gunzip).