From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a04090219483dd96512@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  2 Sep 2004 22:48:58 -0400
From: Russ Cox <russcox@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] /sys/src/cmd/ps.c
In-Reply-To: <6f9638a5b39fcfeba12510c418feed10@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6f9638a5b39fcfeba12510c418feed10@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dd49edf6-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I've (trivially) added a "-f procdir" option to ps(1) so that I could
> use a different source for the /proc information.  It would have been
> as easy to spawn a new window and import the remote /proc in it, but
> I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels they may want access to the
> local and the remote /proc simultaneously.  Is it worth documenting
> the option and submit a patch?

i'd rather you just used bind.
next all the debuggers will 
need the flag too.  where will
it stop?

we have shorthands like /proc
and /dev/mouse and the like
for a reason.