From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 23 13:22:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E00A14D98 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:22:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id FAA19075; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:19:52 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <3720D54C.70CDDF13@newsguy.com> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:17:16 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alk@pobox.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nice little kernel task for somebody References: <14112.52429.575986.913523@avalon.east> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Anthony Kimball wrote: > > : Against that there is a general Linuxism/Kitchen-Sink feeling. > > Think of this case as a plan9-ism. I think nothing of it... My opinions wouldn't matter a tiny little bit. :-) Still, after reading the Samba reply to the Microsoft, err, Mindcraft NTvsLinus benchmark, and the comments on tuning through /proc, I have to say I'd feel disgusted to have something like that on FreeBSD. It gave a whole new meaning to the word "arcane". Still, I'm against process privacy. We ought to be able to know anything about how a process is using *our* (the system's) resources. At least until we get proper compartimentalized security, which a number of people few is very un-Unix-like. :-) -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Well, Windows works, using a loose definition of 'works'..." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message