Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc

Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2001-11-07T17:25:24Z

--On Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:20 AM -0500 "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:

> I can see that you are unfamiliar with the /proc filesystem.
>
> You can change kernels because app developers work hard to
> be tolerant of stupid /proc changes.
> Some of the crap that
> I've stumbled across, mostly while doing procps work:

My point is two-fold:

1. Sure, you (and no doubt others) had to do lots
of work fixing userland, which
you shouldn't have had to do. But that seems to be
more down to lack of discipline in interface changes
rather than because the interface isn't binary. I am
sure it's easier to strip out a spurious 'kb' that
gets added after a number, than to deal with (say)
an extra inserted DWORD with no version traching.

2. The system survived. The interface was there. Bload
sweat and tears were no doubt expended, possibly by
the wrong people, but in practice the interface worked,
(no, not optimally). I'd suggest even with it's badly
managed changes, thouse have been less disruptive than
many other non-ascii based conventions (I'm thinking
back to Net-2E/2D). Sure, wtmp, utmp have been stable.
Not sufficiently familiar with process accounting or
quotas, though I have some possibly incorrect memory
of the latter suffering some format change which was
generated compatibility problems with user space tools?

--
Alex Bligh