Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:18521 comp.sys.hp:3088 comp.lang.c:22565
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu!raveling
From: raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.sys.hp,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Job Control (a la csh/ksh) from within C
Message-ID: <10041@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 89 02:50:49 GMT
References: <1989Oct6.164830.5856@utzoo.uucp> <1719@zen.co.uk> <1989Oct3.153120.4750@utzoo.uucp> <320@sopwith.UUCP>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 32

In article <1989Oct6.164830.5856@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
Spencer) writes:
> In article <320@sopwith.UUCP> snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) writes:
> >| Well, the *proper* way to control jobs is not to fool around with
> >| abominations like BSD job control, but to do something sensible like a
> >| window system that lets you interact with multiple processes without
> >| ornate kludges.  However, that probably isn't what you wanted...
> >
> >Henry, Henry, Henry.  Job control is necessary even with a window system.
> >Otherwise how does one stop a process without killing it?
> 
> One tells the system to suspend it.  Yes, this does require some sort of
> facility for doing so.  No, it does not require mysterious signals with
> bizarre semantics, magic control characters, or any of the other sludge
> that job control brings along.  You've got other windows, remember -- you
> can use one of them to request the suspension, and to fiddle with the
> process thereafter.

	Right on!

	There've been a number of decent-to-good examples of
	this sort of facility, but I haven't seen one yet in
	a Unix system.

	P.S.:  It's easier to implement good process/job control
	if you slip a more capable kernel underneath Unix instead
	of building a kludge over it.


----------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@isi.edu