Subject: Re: kernel & libkvm [was IIci success]
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Downs <email@example.com>
Date: 01/11/1996 11:13:52
In message <9601111910.AA22037@vas.viewlogic.com>,
Open Carefully -- Contents Under Pressure writes:
>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.*
It's highy inelegant for pieces of an operating system to break if some
small data structure in the kernel changes. ps(1) and friends should use
procfs, which should be a mandatory part of the kernel.
It's time to step out of the stone ages of operating system design. People
who think otherwise can go run 386BSD or 4.3, and stop holding others
to an old and broken design.
firstname.lastname@example.org --> teeny.org: Free Software for a Free Internet <--