Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:23:15 -0700 From: Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecating ps(1)s -w switch Message-ID: <1251217395.83189.1.camel@jill.exit.com> In-Reply-To: <4A9407D3.60006@freebsd.org> References: <20090825034054.2d57e733@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20090825134447.GM2829@hoeg.nl> <200908251609.09302.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> <4A9407D3.60006@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 08:48 -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Jonathan McKeown wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 August 2009 15:44:47 Ed Schouten wrote: > >> * Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >>> I recently closed bin/137647 and had second thoughts after Ivan (the > >>> originator) challenged my reason for closing it. > >>> > >>> The suggestion is that ps's -w switch is a strange artifact that can > >>> be safely deprecated. ps goes to great lengths to implement width > >>> limitations, and any time I've seen people not using -ww has either > >>> been a mistake or doesn't matter. > > The difference between "ps", "ps -w", and "ps -ww" is pretty > significant for Java, in particular. Java command lines > are typically enormous (thank you, CLASSPATH) which makes > "ps -ww" often more annoying than it's worth. > > I concur with another poster that the GNU ps approach for > supporting multiple argument styles deserves consideration. I realized that nobody asked me, but IMHO it ain't broke so don't fix it. I use -w and -ww a lot, and yes, I do distinguish them. Sometimes -w is enough; if it isn't, then I'll use -ww but otherwise I avoid it because it gives just too much output in many cases. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1251217395.83189.1.camel>