Xref: utzoo comp.arch:13218 comp.unix.questions:19106 comp.misc:7947 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.questions,comp.misc Subject: The trouble with fork() (Re: IBM PC prehistory) Message-ID: Date: 16 Jan 90 19:10:15 GMT References: <7413@drilex.UUCP> <380@bambam.UUCP> <44106@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM> <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Followup-To: comp.misc Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 9 Fork() is an elegant concept, but as has been seen it leads to problems implementing UNIX on a system without an MMU, or implementing a UNIX lookalike on top of a non-UNIX O/S. It's possible, but expensive. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a sanctioned P1003 subset that replaced fork() with a combined fork()/exec() call (spawn?). Or just an addition of spawn to the standard as an alternative process creation mechanism: This would radically improve the performance of non-UNIX POSIX systems, without compromising the capability of the standard... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'