Brian Somers wrote:
To clarify, my proposal is to silently ignore the -w switch (any/all of them)
and to remove the code that reads the terminal width and truncates some
columns based on the result (or based on "132").
If you're going to change something that, whether you
agree with it or not,
"Matthew D. Fuller" writes:
> FWIW, I'm in favor of at least carefully examining whether the cons
> really disqualify the change.
They do. Breaking scripts is not acceptable under any circumstances.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebs
Dag-Erling Smørgrav napisa:
Actually, ls does pretty much the same thing (use a different layout
when run on a tty), and it's far from the only Unix utility to do so.
Usually, the tty layout is "pretty" while the non-tty layout is easier
to work with in scripts.
Actually ls doesn't work the sa
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:40:09PM -0700 I heard the voice of
Brian Somers, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> I think this is a shame as I find the pros more compelling than the
> cons, and I'm sure there are more than a few supporters out there on
> hackers@ that will stay silent.
FWIW, I'm in favor of
Brian Somers writes:
> To clarify, my proposal is to silently ignore the -w switch (any/all of them)
> and to remove the code that reads the terminal width and truncates some
> columns based on the result (or based on "132").
>
> The pros:
>
> - ps's code becomes simpler. It was mentioned that th
Brian Somers wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:40:54 -0700 Brian Somers 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 t
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:40:54 -0700 Brian Somers 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 lengt
,--- You/Dag-Erling (Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:20:59 +0200) *
| Tim Kientzle writes:
| > 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 ann
Ivan Radovanovic writes:
> I think software should evolve to be better rather then to stick with
> something done the wrong way, even that has been done maybe 30 years
> ago - that is why behavior should be changed. It is never too late to
> do the right thing ;-)
Are you also going to rewrite 30
Tim Kientzle writes:
> 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.
Java command lines aren't necessarily enormous
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 22:51:43 Rick C. Petty wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 04:09:09PM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> > I usually want to see ps(1) output in easily-read columns. Without width
> > limits, this can't be guaranteed.
> >
> > I would strongly object to the complete removal of a
At 11:50 AM -0700 8/25/09, Doug Barton wrote:
Brian Somers 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 grea
Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
Doug Barton napisa:
Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
I totally disagree with you - being against change means that you
believe it is done the best way it could be done.
This argument is so non-sequitur that I'm tempted not to respond, but
no, that's not what I'm saying at
Alex Goncharov napisa:
,--- You/Ivan (Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:02:56 +0200) *
| > Feel free to take a crack at this and send the results to the list for
| > review. Improving the documentation is always a worthy goal.
| >
| I would do that for sure if everyone thinks this ps behavior is
| some
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 04:09:09PM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>
> I usually want to see ps(1) output in easily-read columns. Without width
> limits, this can't be guaranteed.
>
> I would strongly object to the complete removal of any option to limit the
> output width of ps(1) and make it e
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 4:02:56 pm Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
> Doug Barton napisa:
> > Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
> >
> >> I totally disagree with you - being against change means that you
> >> believe it is done the best way it could be done.
> >>
> > This argument is so non-sequitur that I'm
,--- You/Ivan (Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:02:56 +0200) *
| > Feel free to take a crack at this and send the results to the list for
| > review. Improving the documentation is always a worthy goal.
| >
| I would do that for sure if everyone thinks this ps behavior is
| something that should be kept
Doug Barton napisa:
Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
I totally disagree with you - being against change means that you
believe it is done the best way it could be done.
This argument is so non-sequitur that I'm tempted not to respond, but
no, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is
Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
> Doug Barton napisa:
>> If you're developing your own app to display running processes
>> implement it any way you wish. That's totally unrelated to the
>> question at hand.
>>
>> Doug
>>
> I totally disagree with you - being against change means that you
> believe it is
Doug Barton napisa:
If you're developing your own app to display running processes
implement it any way you wish. That's totally unrelated to the
question at hand.
Doug
I totally disagree with you - being against change means that you
believe it is done the best way it could be done.
Althoug
Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
> So, if the developer is presented with a task of developing utility to
> list running processes on the machine the right way to solve this
> problem is to implement it exactly the way the ps is implemented (ie, to
> please some aesthetic criteria (ie to format output to s
Doug Barton napisa:
Brian Somers 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 widt
Brian Somers 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,
Brian Somers 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 t
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 wrote:
> >>> I recently closed bin/137647 and had second thoughts after Ivan (the
> >>> originator) challenged my reason for closing it.
>
Jonathan McKeown wrote:
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 15:44:47 Ed Schouten wrote:
* Brian Somers 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 saf
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ivan Radovanovic wrote:
> Ed Schouten napisa:
>
> * Brian Somers 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 st
* Adrian Penisoara 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 kin
Ed Schouten napisa:
* Brian Somers 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 w
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 15:44:47 Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Brian Somers 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 dep
* Brian Somers 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
> limitatio
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:40:54AM -0700, Brian Somers 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
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 n
33 matches
Mail list logo
