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,
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:40:54 -0700 Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
Brian Somers wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:40:54 -0700 Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
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 at
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
Matthew D. Fuller fulle...@over-yonder.net 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
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 any
Tim Kientzle kient...@freebsd.org 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
Ivan Radovanovic riv...@gmail.com 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
,--- You/Dag-Erling (Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:20:59 +0200) *
| Tim Kientzle kient...@freebsd.org 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
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
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
* Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 15:44:47 Ed Schouten wrote:
* Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
Ed Schouten napisa:
* Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
* Adrian Penisoara a...@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
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ivan Radovanovic riv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Schouten napisa:
* Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
Jonathan McKeown wrote:
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 15:44:47 Ed Schouten wrote:
* Brian Somers br...@freebsd.org 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
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 br...@freebsd.org wrote:
I recently closed bin/137647 and had second thoughts after Ivan (the
originator) challenged my reason for closing
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
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
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
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 some
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.
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 done the best
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
,--- 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
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 tempted not to
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 easily
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
|
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 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
33 matches
Mail list logo
