Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 06/08/2000 18:13:04
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Greywolf wrote:
: # it's mostly a case of programs that have very similar functionality
: # changing behavior based on argv instead of having separate
: # binaries. it saves on disk space.
: ...and load time after the first time you load one of them.
I don't believe that "bsd ps" vs. "sysv ps" is a sane thing on which to use
hardlinks, because of their inherent same base name. I can already smell
the first time someone symlinks $HOME/bin/ps to /usr/bin/ps-sysv and ends up
with a really nasty surprise.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Greg A. Woods wrote:
: directory with a self-describing pathname rather than giving them unique
: filenames (eg. /usr/susv2-bin/ps is better than ps-susv2) because then
: you can use $PATH to select the group and you do not have to concoct a
: number of custom aliases or whatever.
I'd suggest--only because of (popular) prior art on a couple of other
-- Todd Vierling (firstname.lastname@example.org)