on Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> Or we could throw them both out and go back to the dark ages completely
> instead of doing a half-assed job by eliminating only one of them.
> 
> They're both useful, depending on your point of view.  If /proc goes
> away, you need kmem grovelers for process information.

You do not. sysctl kern.proc2 does that. I do not think ps(1) supports fall
back onto /proc anymore.

> If sysctl goes
> away, how do you propose to do what sysctl handles now, do you propose
> we put it into a /sysctl place?  or /ctl/sysctl?  (I'll get to this
> in a moment.)

Linux places it under /proc. echo value >/proc/path/to/blah