Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:35:34 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Radovanovic <rivanr@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Deprecating ps(1)s -w switch Message-ID: <4A943D06.405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4A943C18.2050103@gmail.com> References: <20090825034054.2d57e733@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> <4A94325D.6070201@FreeBSD.org> <4A9436A7.2020108@gmail.com> <4A94385A.1000405@FreeBSD.org> <4A943C18.2050103@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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 that there
are valid reasons to leave the defaults as they are, AND if you don't
like the defaults there are easy ways to manipulate that in your own
environment.
> Although there is another way to solve this "problem" - manual can be
> changed to state in the first row "process status formated for terminal
> output" instead of "process status" which is now title for ps. That way
> it would be obvious at the first look that ps is tightly coupled with
> terminal it is running on and nobody would need to learn this harder way.
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.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A943D06.405>