5 Aug
2014
5 Aug
'14
6:37 p.m.
|> 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] <http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?sysctl+7+NetBSD-current>
--steffen