On 2019-03-23 13:49, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/23/19 1:41 PM, Achim Gratz wrote: >> Corinna Vinschen writes: >>>> replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound >>>> the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to >>>> that effect instead? >>> 1 Jan 1970 may also be a good hint... >> Well, that was the point: I can deduce just from that date that ps >> didn't actually get data for the start time. If it starts replacing >> this with the start time of the system instead, it might take a while >> for me to see what is going on. > On the other hand, the lie is pretty realistic - the program can't have > been running longer than your computer has been powered on, and all such > affected programs will have the same timestamp.
This change is an attempt to mitigate the output from converting time_t 0 to local time. Are there system processes for which the boot time is not a close approximation of the actual process start time as shown by wmic or in an elevated shell? That's all I'm seeing on my home non-domain system. Suggestions for other more usable approaches are welcome. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.