Al, sure no half-assed ad-hoc /proc substitute should go in, but there *are*
*real* problems, and just because you don't see them in your daily life doesn't
mean they don't exist.
These real problems could use a real solution. And *some* of us are at least
going to *discuss* what such a solution could be.
If, or when, we arrive at something where at least some of us agree, then we
will see if it will be your decision to include it at all. At this stage in
the discussion the final (draft) solution may not have anything to do with
filessytems at all. We don't know - or at least I don't know.
>
> Can it. Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "veto".
Just because data is in a filesystem doesn't mean it doesn't need structure
*in* the data too.
Get over it Al.
>
> Oh, and as for "let's extend existing interfaces just because we had flunked
> 'strings in C'" - if you need Hurd, you know where to find it.
My approach would be more like making another interface that could eventually
gradually obsolete an older and inadequate one. I see nothing in /proc that's
worth extending on, as it stands today.
Clearly you have no comprehension of the problems that people are working on
solving with the new proc changes (or, rather, ideas for changes).
That's too bad. It would have been great to have constructive critisism from
someone with your experience.
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/