Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:53:00 -0400 From: parv <parv_@yahoo.com> To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, f-q <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ps & terminal width sensitivity inside a script Message-ID: <20010817205300.B80311@moo.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <200108172113.f7HLDuR30581@ptavv.es.net>; from oberman@es.net on Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:13:55PM -0700 References: <20010817020514.B25092@moo.holy.cow> <200108172113.f7HLDuR30581@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
this was, on the fateful occasion around Aug 17 17:13 -0400,
sent by Kevin Oberman
{ in last episode, i was disappointed by the "just 'cause"
explanation for ps' sensitivity to terminal width...
}
> OK. Here is something more reasonable (but just a bit).
>
...
> There was no termcap or terminfo. There were no windows or even
> CRTs. Since everything was one or the other, ps(1) was written with
> three options, default, w, and ww at 80, 132, and unlimited width,
> respectively. Since LOTS of people wrote aliases and shell scripts that
> were linked to this hard-coded behavior, the very idea of changing it
> was met by screams of protest, so that's where we still are.
so, in this day & age nobody (or not enough bodies) protests anymore?
i also got a similar (one liner) reply from mike meyer. after that i
had a funny feeling that it just might be the legacy.
btw, kevin, your mail did help to sooth my pain, even if a little.
> The SysV ps(1) started from scratch behaving in a reasonable fashion,
> but BSD systems seem forever tied to the bygone days of Teletypes.
>
i suppose there won't be any changes coming anytime soon(?).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010817205300.B80311>