4 ms·

I agree, and it's interesting that you know -e, while I've memorized -axuf ; I guess it's more portable? Again, this is one of those, "Here's what I've got cac

by mjevans 10y ago

I agree, and it's interesting that you know -e, while I've memorized -axuf ; I guess it's more portable? Again, this is one of those, "Here's what I've got cached, and here's where I'd look up what I don't know offhand" questions.

jwilk 10y ago
No, "-axuf" is a weird mixture of BSD and POSIX syntax. From the ps manpage: Note that "ps -aux" is distinct from "ps aux". The POSIX and UNIX standards require that "ps -aux" print all processes owned by a user named "x", as well as printing all processes that would be selected by the -a option. If the user named "x" does not exist, this ps may interpret the command as "ps aux" instead and print a warning. This behavior is intended to aid in transitioning old scripts and habits. It is fragile, subject to change, and thus should not be relied upon.