NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/unix/admin/5025

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-14 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!bertha!sweetjane.hyperdesk.com!adennie
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Pros/Cons: simple vs. fully-qualified name for workstation?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:08:36 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: comp.unix.admin
Organization: HyperDesk Corporation, Westboro, MA
Lines: 34


I've been elected as the guinea pig at our company to upgrade to a new
operating system revision (DG/UX 5.4.2, but I don't think it matters
that much w.r.t. my question).

It has been suggested to me that I name my workstation with a
fully-qualified name instead of a simple name, e.g. name it
"sweetjane.hyperdesk.com", instead of just "sweetjane".  In particular
the sendmail.cf file has a few comments in it recommending this,
although there is no justification for it.

One of my jobs as guinea pig is to write a recipe for everyone else in
my organization to make it simple for them to upgrade, so I want to get
this right before I recommend the fully-qualified approach to everyone.

I can think of two issues that might make the simple name preferable:

1) login scripts that check the host name via the 'hostname' command
   won't work anymore.


2) if we change things around at a later time, so that my machine is
   part of domain devt.hyperdesk.com, my machine name will be
   misleading, and many not even be accessible (anybody know?).


What are the supposed advantages of a fully-qualified name?

Thanks for your help.

--
  o o|  Andy Dennie, HyperDesk Corporation     [e-mail]
  o o|  2000 West Park Drive, Suite 300        Phone: [phone] x109
  ---+  Westboro, MA 01581                     Fax:   [phone]