Why FreeBSD procfs is so different from the Linux one?
jamesh at lanl.gov
Wed Oct 17 14:16:00 PDT 2007
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.
More information about the freebsd-questions