On 11/05/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/11/07, David.Comay at sun.com <David.Comay at sun.com> wrote: > > > > Top includes some additional data that the bundled prstat(1M) doesn't > > currently print but the latter is far more efficient and again, better > > integrated with other OpenSolaris technology such as primitives such as > > tasks, projects, zones, etc. Given that the top currently shipped with > > (some?) GNU/Linux distributions differs from "classic" top from William > > LeFebvre, I would prefer our implementing top in terms of prstat > > perhaps with some compatibility option. > > My *very strong* preference is to supply top - I much prefer it > (and most of my users do too). If you don't ship top, then you'll > keep having people request it be integrated. > > (There's room for debate here - top 3.5.x or 3.6? I know I prefer > the traditional 3.5.x.)
The question is, what does top have that prstat doesn't, and why can't we just set it up so that if prstat is invoked as "top" it acts like top. As far as I can tell, top and prstat are very much alike, and it doesn't make any sense to ship two utilities that do basically the same thing. If it really is a matter of top being drastically different somehow, then I could understand. However, the danger I see in just throwing top in is that people that don't know about prstat may not realise there is a better tool for certain cases than top to use. Having top just for the sake of having it is the short version of my concern. -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
