Message-ID: <4B5A1E7E.9070508@cygwin.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:54:06 -0500
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090320 Remi/2.0.0.21-1.fc8.remi Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Why require ps -W and kill -f
References: <050f01ca9b07$df859370$9e90ba50$@com> <416096c61001212102q8b38104s814fd15688957d3a AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <057e01ca9ba9$c9d6b430$5d841c90$@com>
In-Reply-To: <057e01ca9ba9$c9d6b430$5d841c90$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 01/22/2010 04:28 PM, Don Beusee wrote:
> People don't care about implementation details.  They care about what is
> running on the system (the WHOLE system).  They want kill and ps to show
> what's running on the system, not what cygwin "thinks" is running.  Since
> exec() creates a new process on windows, that's more relevant for these
> tools.
>
> You have to admit, ps -ef showing only a few processes out of a houndred
> is a serious handicap for these tools and any scripts trying to maintain
> compatibility across windows and unix/linux.  Also, the man page for -e
> (on unix/linux) says that -e means "every process on the system".
>
> It will be more useful to show all windows processes, or if you want to
> be smart about it, all windows processes minus all the ones cygwin knows
> are the result of exec().  However, I think the exec() distinction
> doesn't really matter (certainly not to most people), since, how often
> will you really see it and how often will it really matter?  I don't see
> what's the big deal to allow ps and kill to see all windows processes by
> default.
>
> How about let the user control how this works without having to change
> scripts or typing habits?  Can you add a new option via the CYGWIN
> environment variable, something like [no]allprocs which kill and ps can
> look at instead of -f and -W options (although you can keep those for
> compatibility with existing cygwin releases)?  Of course, I think the
> default behavior should be allprocs, since I believe almost all users
> will prefer this behavior.

You've been given allot of good reasons for why Cygwin's 'ps' works as
it does.  While there may be some minimal benefit to users to not have
to type the extra flag to get Windows processes listed, if that's what they
want, adding a system-wide flag to the CYGWIN environment variable is a
10 ton sledge hammer for the pin you're trying to drive home.  I don't
see the point to arguing for this change to Cygwin if you're not going to
get consistency everywhere though.  Perhaps you should consider
that aspect and redirect your efforts upstream if you feel this issue
warrants more discussion (and hasn't already been hashed and rehashed
there).  In any case, as others have pointed out already, in the meantime,
you're "stuck" with the current options - either alias or script your way out
of this problem or create a patched version for yourself.


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple