> > I think the idea (of a procfs ps) was shot down on the
> lists some time
> > ago because ps needs to retain the ability to look at
> the process list
> > in a kernel coredump. IMHO that's a lot of messy kvm
> groveling and
> > associated kernel-to-userland sync dependencies, just to
> cater to the
> > (generous figure) 0.5% of the people out there who have
> 1) a crashing
> > FreeBSD box and 2) the expertise and the will to debug
> the crash dump.
> > I think that issue needs to be revisited somehow.
>
> Well.. I do use crash dumps, but rarely use ps on them..
> Even so you could have
> 2 implementations of ps, or a ps which allows you to
> compile in a different
> 'back end'. That way you can use either easily.
I concur; those were my thoughts exactly.
> > Unfortunately I don't have my proposal written in diff(1) at the
> > moment, but writing all this out makes me really want to
> go ahead and
> > do it. Then again, somebody DID ask for a CS project. :)
>
> Heh :)
Say, when is babelfish going to put up an English->diff(1) translator?
Would make things a hell of a lot easier around here! :>
Jason Young
accessUS Chief Network Engineer
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
