From: johnsonm@stolaf.edu (Michael K. Johnson) Subject: Re: kmem ps is nicer Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:44:16 GMT
In article <1993Jan27.233808.1875@holmes.demon.co.uk> loz@holmes.demon.co.uk (Laurence Culhane) writes:
[kmem ps vs. procps]
I for one hope that we *always* have the choice. I want both available
and would hope that Branko will keep upgrading the kmem code for major
releases. Obviously it's not so vital that minor hacks are made for
interim kernel patches. BUT having a kmem based ps available for all
major number kernel releases would be great.
I am the author/collector of the procps suite, and I agree 120%.
procps has limitations that the kmem ps doesn't have. It is also a
little slower (especially visible on my 386sx16), though I have
managed to optimize it a bit. With an arbitrary namelist, kmem-based
tools are very hacker-friendly.
I use both, myself. kmem ps is very useful, and I have encouraged
Branko to continue to maintain it. procps is the easy route for many,
but as always, ease means giving a few things up.
Comments? Mail them. Don't post.
Well, I think this is of general enough interest to post, so I'm
posting it... Sorry.
michaelkjohnson