From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sdaoden@yandex.com (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 14:37:55 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] /proc - linux vs solaris In-Reply-To: <99D0780C-AB35-4C06-9BD7-542A0A8BE89A@tfeb.org> References: <1407183693.25672.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> <20140804222325.GK19745@mcvoy.com> <99D0780C-AB35-4C06-9BD7-542A0A8BE89A@tfeb.org> Message-ID: <20140805133755.GnDHUfub%sdaoden@yandex.com> |> I get the arguments above but I don't buy 'em. linux really got /proc |> right in terms of usefulness. Digging binary blobs out of the kernel |I agree with this, with one caveat: there are things which \ |exist in /proc which should be in a standard format (extensible \ |if need be) but are not. I forget the particular example \ Whereas unprofessional i missed the most any documentation; if i recall correctly (i think i do) in at least the 2.4 series there was a PROCFSENTRY() (or quite similar) macro which well did what it says and i still don't understand why there was no, and may it be optional, and may the final usage of it be optional in addition, documentational string argument for this. That is i found, and again found some years ago when i first installed Linux on this Notebook and tried to get the fans controlled, that it is completely intransparent; how easy would it be if each entry in proc had a xy.txt that simply expands to the the content of the mentioned string argument? Like it was it took hours to get the fans right. How nice it was once i switched over to (then Free) BSD, which documents not not nil (as in [1]). [1] --steffen