Jonathan Stone writes:
> >> and I'm sure there are several I've left out.
> >> I think emulating all of these faithfully would be a hard task.
> 
> >We needn't emulate *all* of it -- just the portions that important
> >software we want to run wishes for us to have available.
> 
> Sure, the bits that're repackaged NetBSD procfs + kernfs are
> straightforward, and that should cover most of the install-time
> requirements.
> 
> Maybe we're disagreeing on estimates of how much of /proc Linux apps
> use, and how much they want to run. Or about what Linux users will
> understand if we claim "Linux /proc compatibility".

I'm only concerned about stuff like star office and other major
applications we have widespread interest in.

Perry