Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!richard From: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: The trouble with fork() (Re: IBM PC prehistory) Message-ID: <1570@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 17 Jan 90 17:52:15 GMT References: <7413@drilex.UUCP> <380@bambam.UUCP> <44106@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM> <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> Reply-To: richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 12 In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Wouldn't it be nice if there was a sanctioned P1003 subset that replaced >fork() with a combined fork()/exec() call (spawn?). No, it would just encourage people to use brain-dead systems. The less software runs on them, the sooner we'll be rid of them. -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin