Subject: Re: Nonstandard /proc? (Re: /proc directory, dosemu, and boot questions) From: amoss@picton.cs.huji.ac.il (Amos Shapira) Date: 1 Aug 1993 10:25:11
cfs@mathcs.emory.edu (Charles Stephens (guest - exp 9/1/93)) writes:
Mark J. Everett (everettm@merlin.think.com) wrote:
: SVR4 procfs has just one file per process in /proc which basically
: provides access to the process' memory image. Other control is
: provided by ioctl()s. Is there some reason, other than NIH (Not Invented
: Here) that a new 'procfs' was used instead of re-implementing the
: SVR4 version? IMHO, it seems like we've locked ourselves out of
: potential future software, because the original wasn't followed.
: Or has procfs also been changed? Its been a few years ...
I don't see why Linux should be like everyone else. This is our kernel
(philosophically speaking. In reality, it's of course copyrighted and
maintained by our friend Linus Trovalds) we should do it our way, not
theirs. Long live the freedom software. I will now disend from my
little soap box and get a grip. :)
I like the Linux proc file system very much, and hope it will stay that way.
On the other hand if you provide some compatebility with SVR4 then you might
benafit from porting programmes which were originaly writen to SVR4 into Linux.
I don't have my Linux up right now but I'm quite sure that one of the process
files is like what SVR4 provides, would it be possible to provide some way to
map these files into a SVR4-procfs like directory? Doesn't look too difficult
to me.
Cheers,
--Amos