/proc was abused
/proc was abused
Posted Sep 30, 2005 11:34 UTC (Fri) by astrand (guest, #4908)In reply to: /proc was abused by alex
Parent article: securityfs
But /proc as a generic kernel interface has worked very good. I've never heard complaints about that /proc contains stuff that's not about processes.
And even if the intention is to move things out of /proc so that it's only about processes, why is it not enough with *one* additional kernel interface?
Posted Sep 30, 2005 11:54 UTC (Fri)
by alex (subscriber, #1355)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 30, 2005 12:00 UTC (Fri)
by astrand (guest, #4908)
[Link]
Yes. Sometimes you need to browse to /tmp, /media/cdrom, /net/import/mirrors and stuff like that.
Well you've only really got /proc, /dev and /sys which covers the three different paradigms. Does it really matter how much is in / anyway? After all I spend most of my time in /home/alex which is which I can organise however I want./proc was abused
>Does it really matter how much is in / anyway?/proc was abused