If sysfs is created to replace procfs which was too chaotic to handle process information, why all Linux systems still using procfs?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Ipor Sircer, Rui F Ribeiro, dr01, X Tian, Romeo Ninov May 18 '18 at 5:20

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    As far as I understand, proc wasn't too chaotic for process information, but precisely because there was all that other stuff being added there too, besides the process information (which is the main idea of proc, and what the name refers to, anyway). Not an answer since I can't find a reliable-enough source for you. – ilkkachu May 17 '18 at 7:27
  • I can't find more than wikipedia but it seems that what @ilkkachu said is right – Kiwy May 17 '18 at 7:45
  • 1
    Linux did put a lot of stuff into proc that does not belong there and that has never been in an official procfs implementation from the inventor of procfs Roger Faulkner. Some of this stuff now seems to have been moved to sysfs. – schily May 17 '18 at 10:37

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.