Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
To: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/08/2000 12:43:46
>| So, yes, a normal csh-type alias would work under some situations, but
>| not all... OTOH, if I'm the only one that uses this sort of thing then
>| just groping __progname will be good enough.
>Checking __progname is extremely poor style.
huh? loads of programs do it all the time...well...argv at least,
but that's where __progname comes from anyway. loads...perhaps
they're all just special cases?
i, for one, am extremely fond of having a copy of ramdiskbin in the
root of all my filesystems. sure, it eats a more than a meg of disk
space, but the benefits are high higher than the losses.
>Users should be able to copy binaries around
>and rename them as they see fit without seeing
>strange lossage or behavior changes.
% touch me
% ls -l me
-rw-r--r-- 1 andrew staff 0 Jun 8 12:36 me
% cp /usr/sbin/chown ./foo
% cp /usr/sbin/chown ./bar
% ./foo 0 me
foo: me: Operation not permitted
% ./bar 0 me
% ls -al me
-rw-r--r-- 1 andrew wheel 0 Jun 8 12:36 me
>While it's acceptable to grandfather in this sort of thing
>because it has been there forever, adding new instances of it
>should be forbidden.
while it's acceptable to do cool things, you should cease from doing
new cool things.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."