Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca.wv.tek.com!frip!andrew
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why fork?
Message-ID: <5889@orca.wv.tek.com>
Date: 18 Jan 90 16:41:42 GMT
References: <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> <952@dms.UUCP> <7446@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Sender: andrew@orca.wv.tek.com
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
Lines: 23

> From: dwc@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (Malaclypse the Elder)
> Organization: The Legion of Dynamic Discord
> ... we indirectly address this type of question in a paper we
> are presenting at the winter usenix ...
> danny chen
> att!hocus!dwc

Folks, when you refer to something interesting from yourself and your
organization, would you please undo the schmaltz in your "name" and
"organization" fields?  It would be nice in this case to have a better
attribution than just "ATT."  (I don't believe the bit about the
Legion ... :-) )

> since shells tend to be reasonably
> sized processes, the concern about doing forks of large processes is
> currently unjustified.

Think of shell escapes in emacs.  Or vi.  In my favorite BASIC
programming environment (no cracks please) it takes 30 seconds to do
"!ls".

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)    [UUCP]
                        (andrew%frip.wv.tek.com@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]