On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:42:49PM -0700, Josh Brooks wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As I am sure many have noticed, a default installation of 5.1-RELEASE will
> leave you with no procfs mounted at /proc, and no entry in /etc/fstab for
> a procfs.
>
> Is this by design ?
Yes. Historically speaking proc
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:42:49PM -0700, Josh Brooks typed:
>
> Hello,
>
> As I am sure many have noticed, a default installation of 5.1-RELEASE will
> leave you with no procfs mounted at /proc, and no entry in /etc/fstab for
> a procfs.
>
> Is this by design ?
Yes
> Is it better to not run
Hello,
As I am sure many have noticed, a default installation of 5.1-RELEASE will
leave you with no procfs mounted at /proc, and no entry in /etc/fstab for
a procfs.
Is this by design ?
Is it better to not run /proc on 5.x ?
What are the consequences of running without a procfs on 5.x ?
OR
