5 ms·

I just learned about the --forest switch for ps. If you use it, you'll get a tree representing all of the parent and child processes running rather than just a

by aston 18y ago

I just learned about the --forest switch for ps. If you use it, you'll get a tree representing all of the parent and child processes running rather than just a straight up list.

FlorinAndrei 18y ago
Or -f As in: ps axf
raamdev 18y ago
Thanks! I've been using a tool called pstree for the same thing (I didn't even realize ps had such a feature). It looks like the ps utility on OS X doesn't support --forest though, so pstree is still useful there. http://freshmeat.net/projects/pstree/ http://freshmeat.net/projects/pstree/
- Dobbs 18y ago
  The --forest or as later mentioned the -f does not exist in the freeBSD version of ps (I'm assuming all bsd's). If my understanding is correct OSX uses the freebsd utilities so that would be your reason.
ivank 18y ago
htop can also do this.
palish 18y ago
--forest? Seriously? Metaphors are sometimes confusing. Call it what it is. "Reflection" should have been called "type information", for example, and "--forest" should have been called "--nested".
- yan 18y ago
  A process tree is known to almost everyone who uses Unix. A forest is, in my opinion, a good name for a collection of trees. Reflection is the ability of something to introspect. The term "self-reflection" dates back to 1652[1], so why change it? "Type information" is inaccurate because reflection can mean more than just getting information about types, like interfacing with the runtime or getting information about the language implementation. I don't think concepts should be misnamed at the expense of accuracy. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-reflection http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-reflection
  - palish 18y ago
    The term "self-reflection" dates back to 1652, so why change it? I'm saying it shouldn't have been used in the first place. It's an awkward, confusing metaphor. Programs aren't "reflecting", because "self-reflection" is something that only a sentient creature can perform. Programs currently have no concept of "self". I'd say "reflection" is less accurate than "type information", which covers at least 95% of use cases, if not more. I don't think concepts should be misnamed at the expense of accuracy. Neither do I. Also, all else being equal, less metaphors are better.
- lacker 18y ago
  You're talking about a tool whose name is "ps". Unusual names for commands are par for the Unix course.
  - nailer 18y ago
    Process. List. Move. Copy. Tape Archiver. They're not unusual, they're short.
- rkowalick 18y ago
  In graph theory, a collection of disjoint trees is called a forest.

by aston 18y ago

I just learned about the --forest switch for ps. If you use it, you'll get a tree representing all of the parent and child processes running rather than just a straight up list.

FlorinAndrei 18y ago

Or -f As in: ps axf

raamdev 18y ago

Thanks! I've been using a tool called pstree for the same thing (I didn't even realize ps had such a feature). It looks like the ps utility on OS X doesn't support --forest though, so pstree is still useful there. http://freshmeat.net/projects/pstree/ http://freshmeat.net/projects/pstree/

Dobbs 18y ago
The --forest or as later mentioned the -f does not exist in the freeBSD version of ps (I'm assuming all bsd's). If my understanding is correct OSX uses the freebsd utilities so that would be your reason.

ivank 18y ago

htop can also do this.

palish 18y ago

--forest? Seriously? Metaphors are sometimes confusing. Call it what it is. "Reflection" should have been called "type information", for example, and "--forest" should have been called "--nested".

yan 18y ago
A process tree is known to almost everyone who uses Unix. A forest is, in my opinion, a good name for a collection of trees. Reflection is the ability of something to introspect. The term "self-reflection" dates back to 1652[1], so why change it? "Type information" is inaccurate because reflection can mean more than just getting information about types, like interfacing with the runtime or getting information about the language implementation. I don't think concepts should be misnamed at the expense of accuracy. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-reflection http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-reflection
- palish 18y ago
  The term "self-reflection" dates back to 1652, so why change it? I'm saying it shouldn't have been used in the first place. It's an awkward, confusing metaphor. Programs aren't "reflecting", because "self-reflection" is something that only a sentient creature can perform. Programs currently have no concept of "self". I'd say "reflection" is less accurate than "type information", which covers at least 95% of use cases, if not more. I don't think concepts should be misnamed at the expense of accuracy. Neither do I. Also, all else being equal, less metaphors are better.
lacker 18y ago
You're talking about a tool whose name is "ps". Unusual names for commands are par for the Unix course.
- nailer 18y ago
  Process. List. Move. Copy. Tape Archiver. They're not unusual, they're short.
rkowalick 18y ago
In graph theory, a collection of disjoint trees is called a forest.