3 ms·
To be fair, the last two are more from a bad design choice by *nix in general to base everything on passing around unstructured text and hoping each tool's ad-h
by jabbany 5y ago
To be fair, the last two are more from a bad design choice by *nix in general to base everything on passing around unstructured text and hoping each tool's ad-hoc schema won't change.
- touisteur 5y agoThat 'hope' was true for some time, I guess. Those systems had no problems with previous migrations from early fedoras to centos 5.9... When your last line of compatibility is procfs and sysfs and ioctls or posix calls (statvfs for free disk space), well I know what Linux devs think of their installed userbase's time. Yeah yeah free stuff for free alright. Still, if you'd paid for rhel, same shit. Thank your dogs we provide an /etc/redhat-release, heh.
- touisteur 5y agoAnd if course even Linux procfs is not without its surprises. Adding columns or lines was foreseen but some changes are more fun! Take the evolution in /proc/meminfo that changed the meaning of some of the lines there over time (WTF?), whilst adding others (which was fine, expected, etc.). Of course I want now to include IO cache (that will be reclaimed if I ever needed to malloc) in my system's free memory indicator! Heh you can still get back the old value with this formula, what are whining about?