Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
To: Klaus Klein <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/10/2000 00:11:14
On 10 Jun 2000, Klaus Klein wrote:
# Date: 10 Jun 2000 06:48:13 +0200
# From: Klaus Klein <email@example.com>
# To: firstname.lastname@example.org
# Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
# While it's always nice to see a discussion about this, let me toss in
# a piece of information:
# IEEE Std. 1003-200x (the next revision of POSIX) will have a System V
# influenced ps command in its XSI open group, so it'll make sense to
# consider the implications for a moment. With the acceptance of that
# standard in the forseeable future it might make sense to make an
# implementation of this the 'default' utility, moving the existing
# version into a non-default path; something like a /usr/ucb/ comes to
# mind... It's also worth noting that the echo utility will need a
# similar treatment.
AAAGGGGHHH! No! Separate out the SysV stuff, I mean, isn't this
Net*BSD*? Sorry to put it like that, and I know it seems knee-jerk,
but I didn't think that ditching our roots so completely was in the
# About supporting both BSD and System V style options in a single
# executable: please take into consideration that there are at least
# three command line options (-e, -p, -u) whose use differs between
# 'our' BSD implementation and System V.
1) You mean _the_ BSD implementation.
2) System V is System V and should be treated as such.
3) How does our version of -p differ from SysV -p? They both mean
'reference the pid'.
4) If we MUST have sysV be the default, I'd still prefer the same stuff
in one executable, with "-B" to mean BSD style. Otherwise, relegate
it to /usr/xpg4 (as has been suggested) and keep /bin/ps the same.
5) POSIX is NOT the be-all end-all for our existence, is it?
BSD: true inheritors of the UNIX(tm) legacy.