Why linux kernels still use procfs? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
If sysfs is created to replace procfs which was too chaotic to handle process information, why all Linux systems still using procfs?
linux-kernel
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
closed as primarily opinion-based by Ipor Sircer, Rui F Ribeiro, dr01, X Tian, Romeo Ninov May 18 at 5:20
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
If sysfs is created to replace procfs which was too chaotic to handle process information, why all Linux systems still using procfs?
linux-kernel
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
closed as primarily opinion-based by Ipor Sircer, Rui F Ribeiro, dr01, X Tian, Romeo Ninov May 18 at 5:20
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
6
As far as I understand,procwasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea ofproc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you.
– ilkkachu
May 17 at 7:27
I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right
– Kiwy
May 17 at 7:45
1
Linux did put a lot of stuff intoprocthat does not belong there and that has never been in an officialprocfsimplementation from the inventor ofprocfsRoger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved tosysfs.
– schily
May 17 at 10:37
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
If sysfs is created to replace procfs which was too chaotic to handle process information, why all Linux systems still using procfs?
linux-kernel
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
If sysfs is created to replace procfs which was too chaotic to handle process information, why all Linux systems still using procfs?
linux-kernel
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
edited May 17 at 7:21
ilkkachu
48.1k669133
48.1k669133
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
asked May 17 at 7:19
Sameer Kape
61
61
closed as primarily opinion-based by Ipor Sircer, Rui F Ribeiro, dr01, X Tian, Romeo Ninov May 18 at 5:20
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Ipor Sircer, Rui F Ribeiro, dr01, X Tian, Romeo Ninov May 18 at 5:20
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
6
As far as I understand,procwasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea ofproc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you.
– ilkkachu
May 17 at 7:27
I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right
– Kiwy
May 17 at 7:45
1
Linux did put a lot of stuff intoprocthat does not belong there and that has never been in an officialprocfsimplementation from the inventor ofprocfsRoger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved tosysfs.
– schily
May 17 at 10:37
add a comment |Â
6
As far as I understand,procwasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea ofproc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you.
– ilkkachu
May 17 at 7:27
I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right
– Kiwy
May 17 at 7:45
1
Linux did put a lot of stuff intoprocthat does not belong there and that has never been in an officialprocfsimplementation from the inventor ofprocfsRoger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved tosysfs.
– schily
May 17 at 10:37
6
6
As far as I understand,
proc wasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea of proc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you.– ilkkachu
May 17 at 7:27
As far as I understand,
proc wasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea of proc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you.– ilkkachu
May 17 at 7:27
I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right
– Kiwy
May 17 at 7:45
I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right
– Kiwy
May 17 at 7:45
1
1
Linux did put a lot of stuff into
proc that does not belong there and that has never been in an official procfs implementation from the inventor of procfs Roger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved to sysfs.– schily
May 17 at 10:37
Linux did put a lot of stuff into
proc that does not belong there and that has never been in an official procfs implementation from the inventor of procfs Roger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved to sysfs.– schily
May 17 at 10:37
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
6
As far as I understand,
procwasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea ofproc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you.– ilkkachu
May 17 at 7:27
I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right
– Kiwy
May 17 at 7:45
1
Linux did put a lot of stuff into
procthat does not belong there and that has never been in an officialprocfsimplementation from the inventor ofprocfsRoger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved tosysfs.– schily
May 17 at 10:37