>I think the name "user_ps_ax" is confusing. It's not obvious to me if 0 or
>non-zero means that a user can see only her processes. With a default of
>1, we get current behavior (which is the least-surprising thing). How
>about changing the name to user_ps_ax_all, then 1 means user ps -ax sees
>all. Or change the logic and name it no_user_ps_ax (get rid of the !).

just to clarify, the -a option to ps is the cause for "concern".  the
-x option is not.  including the "x" in these discussions only
confuses the issue.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."