Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johan Danielsson <email@example.com>
Date: 06/05/2000 16:25:13
Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> There are a few "specials" (such as securelevel) which would be
> handled in this way, but the number of other "tuneables" for which
> this can be applied weights strongly in favour of generic support.
There is nothing that prevent you from supplying a set of standard