Messages in this thread | | | From | (Tim Hollebeek) | Subject | Re: procfs problems | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:42:31 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
Mark H. Wood writes ... > > On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Evan Jeffrey wrote: > > > Stefan Monnier said: > [deletia] > > >Of course, I'd also love to see the /system/info directory be > > >organised. Ideally, the content of each and every file would be in a standard > > >(and binary, but I'm sure string-lovers will jump at me right here) format > > Oooh! ASN.1 anyone? > > > >with library functions to turn those binary streams into strings (and a > > >corresponding bin2text programs for those who want to replace > > >"cat /proc/cpuinfo" by "bin2text /system/info/cpu"). That standard format woul > > > > Not binary! This is something I really do object to. The whole point of > > /proc is to provide system/process info in a human readable format. I also > > I think here lies part of the problem. There are two camps: one thinks > that /proc is meant to be human-readable, and programs trying to parse it > are on their own; the other thinks that /proc is meant to be > machine-readable and that humans should write prettyprinter programs if > they want it nicely formatted for the eye. Isn't there some way to > reconcile the two views, or at least settle which one is correct?
While I remember, /dev/sndstat really should be in /proc since it isn't a device at all. On the other hand, manybe all the non-process stuff in /proc should move to /dev/status/...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement, Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true. Princeton University | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu ----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
| |