This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ps -ef difference linux/cygwin (arguments)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 14:11:23 -0400
- Subject: Re: ps -ef difference linux/cygwin (arguments)
- References: <20090429081129.GA44103@xs4all.nl> <20090429144728.GB12904@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090429150130.GC12904@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090501145221.GA6507@amd64.of.nowhere>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 04:52:21PM +0200, email@example.com wrote:
>From: Mark J. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:31:13AM -0400
>>This has come up before; an archive search might save some repetition.
>Yes, sorry about that. I can understand that the output of ps is used
>in scripts. I find it harder to understand that adding a new flag to
>ps would also break those scripts,
You're assuming a fact not in evidence.
>but what I'd love most and suspect would keep this question from
>popping up and getting everybody excited now and again would be a small
>line in the ps man page.
Well, the current "excitement" was apparently because I provided a one
line direct response to a question rather than assuming that what was
actually being asked for was a history lesson and a reminder that
patches are thoughtfuly considered. Little did I know that there was an
indignant person out there who was capable of speaking for lots of
Cygwin users who languished in ignorance on this subject.
Languishing aside, however, if someone is willing to provide a patch to
provide a new option and new functionality, it will be given the same
attention that we always give to patches.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html