uptime from sh-utils broken? (was: Re: uptime & w)

Dagmar d'Surreal dagmar.wants at nospam.com
Wed Jul 30 12:40:33 PDT 2003


On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 14:13, Ulrich Fahrenberg wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2003, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> 
> > There are almost zero cases where it is useful to _not_ mount
> > /proc.  The uptime command failing because you don't have proc
> > mounted does not make it broken.
> 
> I don't know who told you that I didn't mount /proc. I have /proc
> mounted. But on another issue: what are these, almost zero, cases
> where it could be useful to umount /proc?

Would you bother mounting proc on a stripped down rescue disk?  If you
had a floppy or CD whose only job in life was to erase IDE drives in a
hurry, would you need to mount /proc?  etc, etc...

-- 
The email address above is just as phony as it looks, and for obvious reasons.
Instant messaging contact nfo: AIM: evilDagmar  Jabber: evilDagmar at jabber.org




More information about the blfs-support mailing list