Re: procfs problems

Richard B. Johnson (
Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:26:04 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> (I would have sent this by private mail, but Richard never seems to get,
> or at least take notice of, any mail I send that way).

I got this one!!!


> Those tools aren't obsolete. Maybe you don't use `ed' any more, but 'cut'
> (and things like `awk') are definitely still in widespread use. And yes,
> I think it would be beneficial to be able to parse /proc with them.

If so, then /proc just needs to be cleaned up a bit here and there with
no standards imposed at all (maybe spelling should be checked).

> > My guess is that this discussion will go no where because everyone
> > has their own idea (rightfully so) of what is best. Hopefully, at
> I think you may be right. Certainly as long as people keep raving about a
> binary /proc.
> p.

Dick Johnson
Richard B. Johnson
Project Engineer
Analogic Corporation
Voice : (508) 977-3000 ext. 3754
Fax : (508) 532-6097
Modem : (508) 977-6870
Email :,
Penguin : Linux version 2.1.33 on an i586 machine (66.36 BogoMips).
Warning : I read unsolicited mail for $350.00 per hour. Supply billing address.