Pros of btop

• More visually appealing interface with graphs and color schemes
• Supports mouse input for easier navigation and configuration
• Offers a wider range of system information, including network and disk I/O

Cons of btop

• Higher resource usage compared to htop
• Less mature project with potentially fewer contributors and community support
• May have a steeper learning curve for users familiar with htop's interface

Code Comparison

htop:

void Process_writeCommand(Process* this, int writefd) {
    int saved_errno = errno;
    if (write(writefd, this->comm, strlen(this->comm)) < 0) {
        // Handle error
    }
    errno = saved_errno;
}

btop:

void Proc::collect(const std::vector<std::string>& cpus, bool no_update) {
    if ((++coll_iter % 10 != 0 and not no_update) or collect_done) return;
    collect_done = true;
    // ... (additional code)
}

Both projects use C-based languages, with htop using C and btop using C++. The code snippets show different approaches to handling process-related operations, reflecting the overall design philosophies of each project.

Pros of Glances

• More comprehensive system monitoring, including network, disk I/O, and sensors
• Web-based interface for remote monitoring
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows)

Cons of Glances

• Higher resource usage due to more extensive monitoring
• Steeper learning curve with more complex interface

Code Comparison

Glances (Python):

def get_stats():
    stats = {}
    stats['cpu'] = psutil.cpu_percent(interval=1)
    stats['memory'] = psutil.virtual_memory().percent
    return stats

htop (C):

static void ProcessList_scan(ProcessList* this) {
   LinuxProcessList* lpl = (LinuxProcessList*) this;
   ProcessList_goThroughEntries(this);
}

Summary

Glances offers more comprehensive monitoring and a web interface, making it suitable for remote system management. However, it consumes more resources and has a steeper learning curve. htop is lighter and focuses on process management with a simpler interface. The code comparison shows Glances using Python with the psutil library, while htop is written in C for lower-level system interactions.

Pros of bottom

• Modern, customizable UI with mouse support and theming options
• Built-in battery monitoring and temperature sensors
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows)

Cons of bottom

• Less mature project with fewer contributors
• May consume more system resources than htop
• Steeper learning curve for users familiar with htop

Code Comparison

htop:

void Process_writeCommand(Process* this, int attr) {
    int start = this->cmdlineBasenameOffset,
        end = this->cmdlineBasenameEnd;
    RichString_writeWide(this->cmdline, attr, &this->cmdlineWide[start],
                         end - start);
}

bottom:

pub fn draw_data(&mut self, f: &mut Frame<B>, area: Rect, force_redraw: bool) {
    if !self.is_visible() {
        return;
    }
    if force_redraw {
        self.is_dirty = true;
    }
}

Both projects aim to provide system monitoring capabilities, but bottom offers a more modern approach with additional features and cross-platform support. However, htop remains a more established and resource-efficient option with a simpler interface. The code comparison highlights the different programming languages used: C for htop and Rust for bottom, reflecting their respective design philosophies.

Pros of ytop

• Written in Rust, offering potential performance benefits and memory safety
• Modern, colorful, and aesthetically pleasing interface
• Supports mouse input for easier navigation

Cons of ytop

• Less mature and feature-rich compared to htop
• Limited customization options
• Smaller community and fewer contributors

Code Comparison

htop (C):

static void Process_writeCommand(Process* this, int attr) {
    int start = this->cmdlineBasenameOffset,
        end = this->cmdlineBasenameEnd;
    RichString_writeWide(this->cmdline, attr, &this->cmdline[start], end - start);
}

ytop (Rust):

pub fn draw<B: Backend>(&mut self, f: &mut Frame<B>, area: Rect) {
    let chunks = Layout::default()
        .direction(Direction::Vertical)
        .constraints([Constraint::Length(3), Constraint::Min(0)].as_ref())
        .split(area);
    self.draw_header(f, chunks[0]);
    self.draw_body(f, chunks[1]);
}

Both projects aim to provide system monitoring capabilities, but ytop offers a more modern approach with its Rust implementation and visually appealing interface. However, htop remains more feature-rich and customizable, with a larger community backing it. The code snippets showcase the different languages and approaches used in each project.

Pros of s-tui

• Graphical interface with real-time charts for CPU frequency, utilization, and temperature
• Built-in stress test functionality for system benchmarking
• Customizable color schemes and layout options

Cons of s-tui

• Limited to CPU and temperature monitoring, lacking broader system resource views
• Less mature project with fewer contributors and updates compared to htop
• Python-based, which may have higher resource usage than C-based htop

Code Comparison

s-tui (Python):

def get_cpu_freq(self):
    cpu_freq = psutil.cpu_freq()
    return OrderedDict([
        ('Current', cpu_freq.current),
        ('Min', cpu_freq.min),
        ('Max', cpu_freq.max)
    ])

htop (C):

static void LinuxProcessList_scanCPUFrequency(LinuxProcessList* this) {
   unsigned long cpufreq = 0;
   for (int i = 0; i < this->super.cpuCount; i++) {
      cpufreq += Platform_getCPUFrequency(i);
   }
   this->cpuFrequency = cpufreq / this->super.cpuCount;
}

Both projects offer system monitoring capabilities, but s-tui focuses on graphical CPU and temperature monitoring with stress testing features, while htop provides a more comprehensive text-based system resource viewer. s-tui's Python implementation may be easier for some developers to contribute to, but htop's C-based code likely offers better performance for resource-constrained systems.

Pros of gtop

• Built with JavaScript and Node.js, making it more accessible for web developers
• Offers a modern, visually appealing interface with charts and graphs
• Easier to install and run on systems with Node.js already installed

Cons of gtop

• Less comprehensive system information compared to htop
• May consume more system resources due to being built on Node.js
• Limited customization options and keyboard shortcuts

Code Comparison

htop:

void Process_writeCommand(Process* this, int writefd) {
    int saved_errno = errno;
    if (write(writefd, this->comm, strlen(this->comm)) < 0) {
        // Handle error
    }
    errno = saved_errno;
}

gtop:

const drawDonut = (percent, innerRadius, outerRadius, label) => {
  const percentValue = percent.toFixed(1);
  const data = [{ percent: percentValue, label }];
  // ... (drawing logic)
};

Summary

htop is a more traditional, C-based system monitor with comprehensive features and lower resource usage. gtop offers a modern, JavaScript-based alternative with an attractive interface but fewer advanced features. The choice between them depends on user preferences, system requirements, and development background.