Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:52:52 -0400 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/linprocfs linprocfs_misc.c Message-ID: <38DEB0E4.C8DA5F6C@vangelderen.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003261420590.82384-100000@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > > > On Sun 2000-03-26 (13:59), Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > > > Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > > > [...] Right now, I just don't see the good in linprocfs. > > > > > > > > It allows me (and tons of other people) to run VMWare without the > > > > fakeprocfs.sh hack. But I guess there's no good in that. > > > > > > I don't see the good in it _if_it_also_loses_every_other_capability_of_procfs_! > > > > If it's mounted on /compat/linux/proc, it makes a _lot_ of sense. > > And then when some Linux app wants to use the part of procfs implemented > in procfs but not linprocfs? One would expect Linux apps to use Linux features only. If they use FreeBSD specifics they might as well run natively, no? Anyway, I'm more worried about yet another cryptix name being introduced. Why not linux_procfs? Cheers, Jeroen -- Jeroen C. van Gelderen - jeroen@vangelderen.org Kick-ass crypto for you: http://www.cryptix.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38DEB0E4.C8DA5F6C>