Mark Morgan Lloyd Wrote: >Please use the same quoting convention as the messages you are responding to. The thread was already growing downwards, and adding a message to the top is inappropriate.
>In my experience, using ps etc. is wrong since apart from the efficiency aspect it makes several assumptions: >i) That the ps binary is available. >ii) That the command-line options you need are universally implemented. >iii) That (at least in the case of Linux) the /proc filesystem is available. >I think that it's probably more portable to go straight to the values available in /proc, if you can't read them then it's unlikely that ps would show you much more. I have never seen a Linux or Unix system that did not have ps installed. Unless we are talking embedded systems or similar. Unix systems (Solaris, AIX, SCO ) do not have the /proc file system, at least it is not usable. So living in a heterogeneous world I would prefer the ps, although I know the options (aux in this case) varies from system to system. Whatever works for the user and he/she finds easiest to use is the correct way ;-) /Kaj -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
