[busybox] Why was it decided to not use /proc?

To: Debian Boot <debian-boot@lists.debian.org>
Subject: [busybox] Why was it decided to not use /proc?
From: karlheg@bittersweet.inetarena.com (Karl M. Hegbloom)
Date: 25 Jan 2000 02:13:58 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 87emb6a26x.fsf@bittersweet.intra>

 What was the reason that it was decided to not use the /proc for
 anything?

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [busybox] Why was it decided to not use /proc?
  - From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>

Prev by Date: [busybox cp] Bug city and the symlink farm.
Next by Date: Re: netconfig restarts dbootstrap
Previous by thread: [busybox cp] Bug city and the symlink farm.
Next by thread: Re: [busybox] Why was it decided to not use /proc?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread