Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!voder!pyramid!moliver
From: moliver@shadow.pyramid.com (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Killing process w/o number (csh)
Message-ID: <153231@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 19:37:23 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: moliver@shadow.pyramid.com (Mike Oliver)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 24

In article <1991Apr24.214750.24522@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>In article <+-A_7A#@warwick.ac.uk>, cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) writes:
>|> I've always wondered why people always do this rather than
>|> 
>|> 	ps axc | grep sysline
>
>Because the 'c' option to grep isn't universally supported.

That's what I said in e-mail, but Rob pointed out that the original use
of `ps -ax' probably means that this is a BSD system which will also
understand the `-c' option.

The giveaway is that the AT&T `ps' doesn't support `-x'.  (Of course,
it's always possible that there's some weird variant of a `ps' out
there that accepts `-ax' and doesn't accept `-axc'.  I don't know of
one.)

As an aside - if you're on an AT&T system, `ps -e' produces something
that looks a lot like the Berkeley `ps -axc'.

Cheers, Mike.

moliver@pyramid.com
{allegra,decwrl,hplabs,munnari,sun,utai,uunet}!pyramid!moliver