Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: What /proc should contain [was: /proc/driver/microcode] | Date | 26 Feb 2000 16:49:58 -0800 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.200002240913.EAA30458@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>, Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>Peter T. Breuer writes:
>> So what? Who cares. It's supposed to be convenient. If that's what it >> takes to be convenient, that's what it takes. > >NO. The kernel API is not supposed to be "convenient" for humans.
Why not? If I want a hostile environment where I have to use userland tools to get even the tiniest bit of information out, I'll use one of the *BSDs, Solaris, or Windows.
>The kernel API should not even be POSIX. The kernel API should be >as fast as possible. It should efficiently support POSIX, Java, >and even Win32. The C library should hide the kernel API,
libc isn't part of the kernel, and it's naive to assume that any of the problems with inexperienced kernel programmers will go away if the kernel published interface is pushed out into a pieces of userland code that's controlled by a third party.
> and there >should be tools that humans can use.
There are!
``cat'', ``awk'', ``sed'', ``perl''
____ david parsons \bi/ it's deja-vu all over again. \/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |