Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:37:09 +0100 From: Wolfram Schneider <wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de> To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> Cc: "Hr.Ladavac" <lada@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at>, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Priorities? Message-ID: <199610302337.AAA01136@campa.panke.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.AUX.3.94.961028094254.717B-100000@covina.lightside.com> References: <199610281236.AA292366197@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> <Pine.AUX.3.94.961028094254.717B-100000@covina.lightside.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jake Hamby writes: >No, the original post is correct. In typical confusing UNIX terminology, >"nice -20 xlock" will set the priority to 20 (a very low priority). If >you're using /usr/bin/nice (which fvwm will, because it uses /bin/sh to >execute commands), then "nice --20 xlock" will raise the priority to -20 >(which requires root privs anyway). If you're using csh, then it gets >more confusing. In that case you are correct, the command will try to >raise the priority (but confusingly, does not print an error if you don't >have privileges) and the correct way to lower the priority is with "nice >+20 command". > >I'm surprised this isn't in the UNIX Hater's Handbook, as it's a great >examples of typical UNIX braindamage... :-) s/UNIX/csh from BSD/ "Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think this is a coincidence" --Anonymous UNIX Hater's Handbook, first chapter, first page --Wolfram Schneider <wosch@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610302337.AAA01136>