[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: killall again

To: Ian Darwin <ian@darwinsys.com>
Subject: Re: killall again
From: Steve Mynott <steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:27:50 +0000
Cc: James WorK <jwk@lords.com>, tech@openbsd.org
References: <20000208145205.A6714@pianosa.catch22.org>; <20000209132924.B19726@darwinsys.com> <20000209194440.8D751A945F@hydra.energy.local> <20000213113614.A31511@darwinsys.com>

On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 11:36:14AM -0500, Ian Darwin wrote:
 
> Is there a consensus? Since this port does all the things that people
> seem to want, should I make "killall" be an alias for zap? Would it
> make sense to rename the port, since killall seems to be a better-known
> name than zap?

I would suggest keeping it as zap.  killall is purely a linuxism.

solaris killall kills _all_ processes, which is a trap many linux
users have fallen into.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk http://www.pineal.com/

    chemistry is applied theology.
        -- augustus stanley owsley iii

Follow-Ups:
- Re: killall again
  - From: "Adam N. Thompson, MCNE, MCSE" <athompso@commerced.com>

References:
- Re: killall again
  - From: David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>
- Re: killall again
  - From: Ian Darwin <ian@darwinsys.com>
- Re: killall again
  - From: "James WorK" <jwk@lords.com>
- Re: killall again
  - From: Ian Darwin <ian@darwinsys.com>
- Re: killall again
  - From: Ian Darwin <ian@darwinsys.com>

Prev by Date: Re: killall again
Next by Date: IPSEC performance test [LONG]
Prev by thread: Re: killall again
Next by thread: Re: killall again
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread