From: "David Herron" <david@twg.com> Subject: Re: Nonstandard /proc? (Re: /proc directory, dosemu, and boot questions) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 21:25:30 GMT
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 ...
To which cfs@mathcs.emory.edu (Charles Stephens (guest - exp 9/1/93)) replied:
> I don't see why Linux should be like everyone else. This is our kernel
> (philosophically speaking.
Hmm..
There is a *LOT* to be gained by having the interfaces follow existing
standards (and to track new ones as they come out).
It makes it more likely you can pull software off the shell and just run it.
Make it easier to port things back and forth. (And the less work there is
to port software the more likely it is that commercial entities would
consider porting products)
Of course if Mark really wants a SysVr4 style /proc he can implement it
and get everyone to use it, eh?
Maybe /proc is a poor choice of features to make this argument over. I am
speaking with a more general viewpoint than this particular feature. One
general issue people here seem to have is somehow attracting commercial
entities to port their commercial software. (eg, the discussions about
running SCO binaries, the excitement when Linux was listed as a possible
platform for Maple, etc).
<- David Herron <david@twg.com> (work) <david@davids.mmdf.com> (home)
<-
<- All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.
<- Proverbs 14:23