Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[rcrsn51]

[gcmartin]

As we are progressing thru this discussion, I think it may be important to note the following;
Puppy has become (in my mind) a major OS. But its a little different in its implementation.

ALL other major OSes are geared toward HDD installation. Puppy has brought to the table a system which is RAM + LIve Media based. So how this hostname issue is handled from the major OS standpoint is a little different than how it may get addressed in PUPPYland

Microsoft, AIX, HPUX, RedHAT, Suse, Ubuntu, etc all ask at system installation time what the system name (HOSTNAME) is to be, then they set all appropriate fields accordingly. 01Micko+JamesBond has suggested options that this be set during Live media boot or at Live media shutdown. (Boot may be a preferred method with preservation at shutdown)

All magor OSes seem to have "hooked/hacked/made adjustments" in hostname processing so that when the hostname function is activated by the roor user to change the system's hostname, all of the sytem's fields are immediately updated accordingly. This is why we are engaged in this discussion. How should we get this OS, Puppy, to do this accordingly too.

So we, here, are talking about 2 issues.

1. The hostname command processing in Puppy
   
2. the system fields affected by hostname command use.

Hope this helps

[gcmartin]

[rcrsn51]

[gcmartin]

[gcmartin]

Starting with 01Micko's approach we would arrinve at desktop with a PC on the LAN that is unique. This would suffice for most newbies who would NOT take the time or effort to change the hostname from the defautl that may ve offered on screen to them.

It this is done on initial boot (pfix=ram) there could also be an option somewhere which would force/ask the booting user to enter/change a name for this booting PC. This would, I thnk address 90& of situations for having the system named and the user to know what the name of the booting PC is. As well, all system applications would have consistent information no matter which field they would use internally for their ooperation. Were this to be done, we would cover most situations of IDing the system hostname fields and would significantly reduce/negaate a need to use the hostname command once the system is at desktop.

This seems reasonable.

Does anyone see a problem with an approach like that?

[shinobar]

To make hostname=HOSTNAME for ROX, we need to reboot PC after the hostname is changed.
Rebooting X is not enough because the script /usr/bin/xwin does not read /etc/profile at reboot.
I am not sure it causes problem, but i think there is a hint.

BTW, connecting tools for puppy should be improved to use the hostname provided from the DHCP service.

[gcmartin]

[amigo]

Here's a good read about the what, how and why of hostname and domain names:
http://jblevins.org/notes/hostname

[01micko]

Interesting read amigo. with that in mind here is what is going in my /etc/rc.d/rc.sysint file just after rc.update is run

[gcmartin]

[sc0ttman]

[01micko]

sc0ttman

The test is to see if the hostname is "puppypc". If anything else is found then that code block is skipped.

If pupadvert blocker is installed previously with a bunch of addresses the addresses are preserved. See the variable "HOSTSFILEREST"

Cheers

[gcmartin]

LightHOUSE64 PUP is running a "Modified" version of Personalize Settings on 64bit PCs.which does everything we are discussing in this thread.

As most of us know, Personalize Settings is becoming an user appealing startup utility for doing some very basic system needs on the Puppy desktop; instead of continually stopping during boot processing to ask users questions for system settings needs. This approach is practical as well as appealing while giving any user a Menu item that he can return to whenever needed to make some setting change.

I don't know what he's done as 64bit Linux "MAY" offer something 32bit does not, but, his Personalize Settings updates ALL known needs for hostname in the system when you click OK. This means that every field that a hostname change should address is being addressed, correctly, all within the running desktop!. Maybe he found something in Personalize Settings that handles this for all system fields-files that is overlooked in 32bit PC's use of Personalize Settings.

I am appealing to TazOC for some insights that could be applied in the 32bit community (or ALL PUPs, in general).

Hope this helps

[sc0ttman]