Subject: Re: kernel & libkvm [was IIci success]
To: Jason Downs <email@example.com>
From: Open Carefully -- Contents Under Pressure <greywolf@defender.VAS.viewlogic.com>
Date: 01/11/1996 11:10:46
I won't even begin to dispute the claims that procfs and kernfs are useful
in their own contexts. "Recommended" is a good label for them. "Required"
is not. I wouldn't "require" kernfs or procfs any more than I would
"require" NFS. The only FS which I could see justifying as "required"
is UFS, which is already there.*
Seeing as most of the UN*X world does use named pipes, though, do we not
have sufficient reason to "require" FIFO?
* Of course you can take that out of context if you want, claiming that I'm
not taking dic^Hskless workstations into account, but I'm not _that_
much of an ignorant idiot... (i.e. reverse the above as necessary for
disk-impaired nodes) :-)]
Microsoft asks you where you want to go. UNIX gets you there. -- unknown