Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: job control
Message-ID: <1989Oct10.022740.20068@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <3492@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3498@solo10.cs.vu.nl> <3539@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3554@solo2.cs.vu.nl> <3592@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3630@solo5.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 89 02:27:40 GMT

In article <3630@solo5.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>Job control.  Henry Spencer wrote you didn't object to it *in principle*,
>but to the POSIX standard.  Perhaps some other scheme would do...

Well, I don't think I put words in Andy's mouth in quite that way -- I
didn't intend to -- but if you think you can come up with a scheme that
is simpler than the one in POSIX, you should try.  The whole approach
is just plain wrong; when you try to define it carefully and make sure
it doesn't cause trouble anywhere, the result is inevitably complex and
messy.  The one in POSIX is probably better than any straightforward
alternative, alas, unless you scrap the whole concept and start over.
Unfortunately, everyone has been so besotted with the original abomination
that there has been very little work on alternatives.

(This would probably make a good research topic for some ambitious folks.
I'd suggest starting with a basic principle:  the job-control system
should manage both input and output, so that no program needs to be
modified to know about job control and it is the job of the system --
not the user or the programs -- to refresh the screen when switching
from one process to another.)
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu