On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:08:07PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > I would like to know when we decided that SUSv2 is a "reasonable
> > standard" to which we should try to conform.  Please do not bring our
> > ps(1) into conformance by giving it System V option syntax...
> 
> Please save both those flame wars for another day.  My current proposal
> is purely about making the -o and -O flags more useful.  The fact that
> the more useful behaviour for the -o flag is also described in SUSv2 is
> incidental.

I don't object to this particular change, assuming we can be reasonably
sure there isn't code out there that it will break.  I would very, very
strongly object to changes to make the basic syntax of our ps conform to
what SUS wants -- the arbitrary changes it imported from SysV (actually,
in this case, from PWB, I think) in areas like this are one of the major
reasons why we have used it, for a long time, as an example of the kind
of standard we are _not_ interested in conformance with in general.

-- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon	                                     tls@rek.tjls.com

  "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
   aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others."      - H.L.A. Hart