[TUHS] UNIX of choice these days?

[Kevin Bowling]

To understand the Linux sysfs, you have to understand what problem
they are trying to solve.  It is self inflicted, but it solves a
problem in a way the community values.  Because the kernel is an
independent project versus libc (glibc, musl, Bionic, etc), and
because the base system is from others as well (coreutils, busybox,
systemd), Linus has become fanatical about ABI stability.  The simple
text interfaces allow the kernel to change haphazardly without much
planning, and still retain binary compatibility.  In terms of code
churn and needless KPI proliferation, Torvald's "masturbating monkeys"
insult toward OpenBSD holds up pretty well for his own crew :)

Operating systems (using subtle terminology that excludes "Linux"
without more specification) don't have that problem.

I haven't played with Plan9 at all.  Read some code, the TCP stack was
cute but unrealistically simplistic.  I need to take it for a spin.

Regards,

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bakul Shah <bakul at bitblocks.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling at kev009.com> wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall proc is loosely deprecated in Linux anyway in favor
>> of sysfs.  GregKH mentioned people misuse both, for instance making
>> them output pretty histograms instead of simple text values, that
>> defeat the fundamental design tenants of these interfaces -- which is
>> to try and maintain a stable API.
>
>> One thing I think Linux did pretty well is the whole object
>> orientation in C thing with kobject, and that nets you automatic sysfs
>> directories and nodes for pretty much everything.
>
> The Linux /sys fs is truly bizarre. On a RaspberryPi running Linux 4.4.21+:
>
> $ find /sys | wc # total entries
> 11448
> $ find /sys -type l | wc # count of symlinks
> 1077
> $ find /sys -type f | wc  # count of "regular" files
> 8931
>
> I am not sure exposing most everything via a namespace in this
> manner is such a good idea (or at least in "good taste" :-)
> Interfaces should be lean.
>
> Similarly the /proc fs is quite strange. Why does it have any
> non process subdirectory?
>
> $ echo /proc/[0-9]* | wc -w # count of processes
> 142
> $ echo /proc/[^0-9]* | wc -w  # count of non-process directories
> 58
>
> Compare:
>
> Linux (raspberryPi + X windows):
> $ echo /proc/[0-9]* |wc -w # how many processes
> 142
> $ find /proc/[0-9]* | wc -l # how many proc related files+dirs
> 66153
>
> FreeBSD (10.3 amd64+zfs+4 lightweight jails):
> $ echo /proc/[0-9]* | wc -w # how many processes
> 123
> $ find /proc/[0-9]* | wc -l # how many proc related files+dirs
> 1075
>
> Plan9 (mostly quiescent):
> $ echo /proc/[0-9]* | wc -w
> 64
> $ du -a /proc/[0-9]* | wc -l
> 1235
>
> Anyone feeling sad about /proc in FreeBSD should consider
> the alternative!
>
>