Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
To: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
Date: 06/08/2000 13:56:01
In message <20000608124346.A5837@noc.untraceable.net>, Andrew Brown writes:
>>| 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 think they are all special cases, yes.
I think most of the above are in fact Bad Ideas(tm), but
ramdiskbin is a special case.
>>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
That's truly special. pr it?
>>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.
I don't think that parsing __progname is a "cool thing,"
it's a "hokey broken thing that causes problem." Any new cool
things can be acheived by either using command line switches or
installing seperate binaries.