Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to determine programmatically how much network traffic is consumed by each process.
I would prefer for a crossplatform solution but I guess this is not possible, so I am searching for a solution which works on MacOSX right now.
The solution should be lightweight. I want to run it in background and it should analyse all running processes.
(Stupid disclaimer: As I am asking on Stackoverflow, I am implying by that that I am asking for programmatic solutions here. The same question on Superuser means something different.)
nethogs
On Ubuntu:
sudo apt-get install nethogs
sudo nethogs
nethogs uses libpcap. To get the sources on Ubuntu and learn from that:
apt-get source nethogs
In particular the decpcap.c file is probably relevant.
And these links might be helpful:
http://www.gsp.com/cgi-bin/man.cgi?section=3&topic=pcap
http://www.tcpdump.org/pcap.html
http://libpcap.darwinports.com/ (Mac pcap install instructions)
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I use Mac Big Sur 11.5.1. I installed wget using brew, but the terminal said apt-get: command not found when I put sudo apt-get install ros-noetic-imu-tools. Although I tried brew install wget again, it said wget 1.21.1 is already installed and up-to-date. So wget is installed for sure. What is a possible cause?
macOS doesn't use apt as its package manager. Homebrew is the most popular package manager for macOS. Additionally, wget has no relation to the package manager, apt. See the awesome answer here for more information.
I would try this search for getting it ROS working with Mac. This SO question might be of relevance too.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I think it is a hard thing to do as nobody was able to help me, if anyone know how to install atom on Bash on Ubuntu on Windows, it would be greatly appreciated.
You can install it as you would on any Ubuntu - from its README.md:
Debian Linux (Ubuntu)
Atom is only available for 64-bit Linux systems.
Download atom-amd64.deb from the Atom releases page.
Run sudo dpkg --install atom-amd64.deb on the downloaded package.
Launch Atom using the installed atom command.
The thing is - it won't run. Bash on Ubuntu on Windows is highly experimental yet, so graphic applications won't work. I've tried on a VM, and I get a libXss.so not found error. You may be able to fix that issue by setting the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable, probably, but you'll hit a bug in the implementation sooner than later.
Anyway, atom runs natively on Windows, so I'm not sure why would you want to install it there.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Hi I was working on some Ruby stuffs and I need to use Linux terminal or Cygwin. Which is the best choice? Is there any slowness issue in Cygwin
The question is pretty subjective to what it is you are really wanting to do. If you need access to the Windows environment, then Cygwin is going to be your choice of the two. mingw32 is often used rather than Cygwin.
I have used Cygwin-X and Cygwin tools for more than a decade. But I think Linux is better if you can do so.
I use Cygwin occasionally when I am traveling and I have not encountered any lag
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I can't figure out where my Mac's apache installation files are (source files).
Doing which apachectl or which ab just shows me /usr/sbin/ and not the original sources, do they even exist on the system or is it just the compiled binaries?
The end goal for me is to upgrade from 2.2.2 that I have no to the latest version.
How can I do this? or can I blow out what I have now and install it via homebrew.
Youll find the headers in /usr/include/apache2. However i wouldnt upgrade they systems apache. I would use Homebrew, MacPorts, Fink, or a manual installation. This way it doesnt get blown away by a system update or break a dependency somewhere. Its probably unlikely either of those would happen, but you never know 100%.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got it configured, but I want more from it...maybe Cygwin isn't the right tool, but I like how it provides a *nix-like environment within Windows.
If you've already read the Cygwin User Guide, take a look at Ten Steps To Higher Cygwin Productivity.
Also, if you're using a shell such as bash in Cygwin, and you're familiar with Emacs, consider using Eshell (the Emacs shell) instead.
I've found Cygwin to be very useful in the past. FWIW, lately however I've shied away from it in favor of the following:
XAMPP
Unixutils
I like these tools even better.
I'm quite interested in this question myself. I've used the Cygwin Setup guide to get set up, but it doesn't get you all the way. One thing that I learned from it, though, is that it recommends leaving the setup.exe in the directory with Cygwin so that you can quickly add packages, since apt-get apparently doesn't work that well in Cygwin. The article also talks about cyg-get as an alternative.