Discover the possibilities of the /proc folder

Quoting:In the unix world, we call those directories.

If they are folders, then why is it Directories Services?

>> Would a directory by any other name smell as sweat?

It's a hard working directory.

Carp, er cr@p, spelling is not among my strong points. But you can sort of translate what I post. And keep zinging me for it, I deserve it.

> If they are folders, then why is it Directories Services?

There's a lot of ambiguity around terminology these days, just like the confusion over the two totally different protocols which are both called "secure ftp" -

Personally, I would have side-stepped the possibility of confusion by referring to the subject of the article as "the /proc filesystem"

I'm not zinging you, Colonel, I think it became a brilliant play on words.

And I agree with herzeleid...why get all worked up over semantics when we know darn well what we're reading and talking about anyway? I think they call attempting to win such arguments "leading by a chin".

Question: It's easy to create an icon that looks like a folder, but how do you create an icon that looks like a directory?

Quoting:Question: It's easy to create an icon that looks like a folder, but how do you create an icon that looks like a directory?

A book with an old telephone receiver on the cover. Just don't color it yellow.

Enlightenment (courtesy of digg): http://turbomilk.com/truestories/cookbook/criticism/10-mista...

I actually remember when Microsoft renamed "directories" to "folders"... Bad ol' days ;)

Quoting:the /proc filesystem

Actually it's "proc filesystem" - without the slash. "/proc" is a common mountpoint. /me loves nitpicking ;)

TT, I was laughing with you, and I never take offense at anything said here, except when someone defends the products/company from Redmond.

This /proc stuff is great. Those of you that are quibbling about the nomenclature have hit on a pet peeve of mine. Once long ago my first day on a new job, the most used item in our work was called by four different names by four different journeymen. I learned, just like I am learning the "terminology" for the Linux stuff. But it does confuse the noobs to no end. How much confusion does it take to send them to another OS? Case in point: SourceMage, http://www.sourcemage.org/ This distro is all about each person getting the distro he/she wants. I mean with SourceMage you can have it "Your Way". But look here: http://www.sourcemage.org/Glossary All I can say is LOL.

tuxtom, your link is just what I am saying HYPERLINK@turbomilk.com] The same rules should apply for words as they do for icons.

OK, then we'll call them "places" instead of folders or directories.

> Actually it's "proc filesystem" - without the slash. "/proc" is a common mountpoint.

You're right - I'd either say /proc or the proc filesystem but not the /proc filesystem - it's silly to confound a mount point with the name of a filesystem. I blame the late hour and the long day.

>> OK, then we'll call them "places" instead of folders or directories.

Hierarchical organizers of digital containers. :)

Pointers to block addresses on physical or virtual partitions.

Quoting:Pointers to block addresses on physical or virtual partitions.

That's just one possible implementation of directories, but the problem is it's not system agnostic, because it assumes the presence of partitions and pointers in first place.

What system doesn't use partitions and pointers at it's lowest level?

Quoting:OK, then we'll call them "places" instead of folders or directories.

--- / for root --- Trunk (tree) for mount points --- Branch for directory --- Leaf for file

Some one pick a synonym for fruit! :)

> What system doesn't use partitions and pointers at it's lowest level?

Some older file systems did not have partitions. I don't believe the original FAT system used on floppies did, for example.

Quoting:Some one pick a synonym for fruit! :)

Processes. Or executables :-)

Quoting:Processes. Or executables :-)

I like that, Fruit for Process is Perfect. This should make it easy for the layman to understand the structure of Linux File System. Now let's work on changing the mind set. :)

> Some older file systems did not have partitions. I don't believe the original FAT system used on floppies did, for example.

But it really has no relevance to /proc or the semantics of "directory" vs. "folder". While entertaining, this thread started as and will end as a useless academic digression.