[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc
>>1)  IT SHOULD NOT BE PRETTY.  No tabs to line up columns. No "progress
>>bars." No labels except as "proc comments" (see later). No in-line
>It should not be pretty TO HUMANS. Slight difference. It should be >pretty
>to shellscripts and other applications though.

If this is the case, why are we using ASCII for everything? If the only
interface to /proc will be applications, then we could just as well let the
application turn four bytes into an ASCII IPv4 adddress. We could easily
have it set up to parse using the format [single byte type identifier (ie 4
for string with the first byte of "data" being the string length, 1 for
unsigned int, 2 for signed int, 19 for IPv4, 116 for progress bar,
etc.)][data]. Let people standardize away. Am I missing the point?

I think every aspect of an OS should be intuitive (so long as it is
efficient), which IMO /proc isn't. If this means splitting it in two, as
some have suggested, so be it. It certainly should have a design
guideline/spec so we may at least be consistant. Just my 2 coppers.

Will Knop

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.099 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site