From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 17 21:16:00 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2882D16A417 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:16:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamesh@lanl.gov) Received: from mailwasher.lanl.gov (mailwasher.lanl.gov [204.121.3.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F199A13C448 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:15:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamesh@lanl.gov) Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by mailwasher.lanl.gov (8.13.8/8.13.8/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id l9HLFq0Q015674; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:15:52 -0600 Received: from oppie-mail.lanl.gov (oppie-mail.lanl.gov [128.165.4.123]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (8.13.8/8.13.8/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id l9HLFqrs010292; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:15:52 -0600 Received: from [128.165.86.10] (secretariat.lanl.gov [128.165.86.10]) by oppie-mail.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879F71F8004; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:15:49 -0600 (MDT) From: James To: Josh Paetzel In-Reply-To: <20071017202927.GB4814@tcbug.org> References: <1192613089.4715d4e1d484b@webmail.rawbw.com> <20071017100205.GB92302@osiris.chen.org.nz> <20071017202927.GB4814@tcbug.org> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratories Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:16:21 -0600 Message-Id: <1192655781.64553.37.camel@secretariat.lanl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-CTN-5-MailScanner-Information: Please see http://network.lanl.gov/email/virus-scan.php X-CTN-5-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CTN-5-MailScanner-From: jamesh@lanl.gov X-Spam-Status: No Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Yuri , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Jonathan Chen Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD procfs is so different from the Linux one? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: jamesh@lanl.gov List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:16:00 -0000 On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:29 -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: > Jonathan Chen wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:24:49AM -0700, Yuri wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > When I look at /proc/PID/ in FreeBSD I see the files: > > > cmdline ctl dbregs etype file fpregs map mem note notepg > > > regs rlimit status > > > and in Linux: > > > cmdline cpu cwd environ exe fd maps mem mounts root stat statm status > > > > > > Why there's such a difference in procfs interface to the process information? > > > > > > In addition Linux has /proc/self/ link which is named curproc in FreeBSD. > > > > > > Isn't it better to have the same interface across the systems? > > > > Maybe. Why don't you get the Linux guys to change theirs? FreeBSD has > > been around longer. > > Well, technically no. BSD predates linux, but linux predates FreeBSD > by a few years. In general though, linux is a reimplimentation and > they've had a habit of changing things in the process, but for any > given interface it's not generally accurate to say linux is the > reimplimentation....sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. > procfs was an innovation of plan9, so I suppose the thing to do would be to refer to *their* procfs. However, either way. I have 1 linux box, something like 15 FreeBSD boxen, and I have to say that on procfs, linux generally does a job that I prefer to see. On FreeBSD, it feels more tacked on, while on linux it feels like there's a lot of rich information there. James