RE: /proc file system

>you have to read the kernel source code to figure what it does. 

Or you can Google your way to answer. 
This has worked for me.

Also I find that /proc is mush easier to understand then the Windows Registry.
Items in /proc make sense to me.

If I ls /proc, I see items like

filesystems
net
devices
scsi
pci
modules

It's simple and direct. As opposed to the registry, which tries to bury everything.

Let's take SCSI as an example.
IN the registry, I would need to get go down to
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DEVICEMAP\Scsi to find SCSI info.
That's 4 levels down, and before I even get to the SCSI ID.
So now here is the SCSI ID
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DEVICEMAP\Scsi\Scsi Port 0\Scsi Bus 0\Target Id 3

On Linux I can "cat /proc/scsi/scsi" and get the same info.

The point I am making is the registry keeps information buried deep and scattered.
/proc tends to be simpler and direct. I find this easier then the Windows Registry.

Alan


-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Ersoz [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 11:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Annoyances] /proc file system


The /proc fs is a thing of beauty.  Because each kernel module is free
to use the proc fs for its own purposes, you have to read the kernel
source code to figure what it does.  That's all there is to it.

Reading the source code is *not* a Linux annoyance.  It is _by_design_.

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 04:05, Daniel C. von Asmuth wrote:
> I wonder why the Linux /proc file system has not made it to the top of
> Linux annoyances. It is about as obscure as the Windows Registry and as
> well documented. We are told that much of what is in /proc will be moved
> to the new sysfs in Linux 2.6, which seems like a small improvement at
> best.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> Daniel von Asmuth
_______________________________________________
annoyances mailing list
[email protected]
http://michelangelo.renaissoft.com/mailman/listinfo/annoyances