Talk:ps (Unix)

Linux Mid‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Cleanup[edit]

This article is seems to miss it's target of a general reader, and talks about so many options as to be somewhat confusing. The ps command is one that is used so often, that it should have a clearer introduction, before going into more advanced options like -e -f, and aux. --Unixguy 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call those "advanced" at all. Using ps in any way other than "ps -ef" (or "ps aux" on non-UNIX systems) is advanced. Beginners just memorize "ps -ef", then maybe pipe it through grep or awk. AlbertCahalan 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does ps stand for?[edit]

Does ps stand for processes? 16@r 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps stands for process status, as far as I know. --Unixguy 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or process or processes status or processes statuses ... ;-) Maikel 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps without options[edit]

OK, so ps -ef shows "every" process in its "full" informational glory. But what does ps without options actually do? On my system it just displays two running processes, BASH and ps. Why are those two displayed and not the others? Thanks. Maikel 11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only that processes are displayed because ps displays only processes asociated to the current terminal by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.100.12.145 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

This link in the article is broken: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man1/ps.1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.139.3 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples[edit]

Could some knowledgeable user(s) add more examples please? examples from experienced users are much appreciated. thanks.--Alnokta (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of ps[edit]

When was it first implemented? When was it first published? By whom? What of note has changed since then? How did the BSD and POSIX syntaxes end up diverging so much? Enquiring minds want to know, and Wikipedia should answer them :) Zazpot (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]