Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:44 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Brian Somers <brian@freebsd.org>, Ivan Radovanovic <rivanr@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Deprecating ps(1)s -w switch Message-ID: <20090825144344.GO2829@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <78cb3d3f0908250736g2ef52068pb84896eac5a2c45d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090825034054.2d57e733@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20090825134447.GM2829@hoeg.nl> <4A93EE5B.8000300@gmail.com> <78cb3d3f0908250736g2ef52068pb84896eac5a2c45d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] * Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro> wrote: > Maybe we should also think about compatibility with System V Unix / Linux > -- I have encountered quite a lot of scripts expecting "ps -ef" to give an > "all processes" output. It would not hurt to review what the Linux folks did > with their ps(1) -- it supports 3 kinds of options for UNIX/BSD/GNU flavors. In my opinion we should just implement ps(1) as documented in the POSIX Onlinepubs. If it turns out it lacks certain features we want, we could consider adding this to procstat(1) instead. I am of course too lazy to work on this. ;-) -- Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkqT+KAACgkQ52SDGA2eCwWzGACePbRe6ZEmjWncFUc4XYWfZTow BOwAnijcbMM7rF/w/fS/689RFYf82SPJ =671z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090825144344.GO2829>