From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: clemc@ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:33:15 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX of choice these days? In-Reply-To: <87mv5kdsny.fsf@x201.onfire.org> References: <87mv5kdsny.fsf@x201.onfire.org> Message-ID: BTW the time it was added (4.4), most of the tools did not use it. Which was sad... and Ron points out. On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Christian Barthel wrote: > ron minnich writes: > > > [1:text/plain Hide] > > > > ptrace replaces procfs? Wow, that's a disappointing turn of events. It's > > also against the flow of thought in the Unix community I knew in 1980. If > > somebody has any of the old ca-1980 BSD manuals, you should find a BUGS > > section on ptrace advocating a move to a file-system-like interface. I > > always assumed ken wrote that little note when he was visiting UCB -- > > anybody know? > > I am also surprised to hear that ptrace replaces procfs. In the 4.4BSD > Book[1] is a chapter about process debugging (chapter 4) with ptrace and > it says: > > ``The ptrace facility is inefficient for three reasons. [...]'' > > And later, it mentions the proc filesystem: > > ``To address these problems, 4.4BSD added a /proc filesystem, similar to > the one found in UNIX Eight Edition [Killian, 1984]. [...]'' > > [1] The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System, > M.K. McKusic, Keith Bostic, Michael J Karels, and John Quarterman, > Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1996, ISBN 0-201-54979-4. > > Kind regards, > Christian > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: