Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!alberta!arcsun.arc.ab.ca!arcsun!kenw From: kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Ignorance speaks loudest (was:Computers for users not programmers) Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 91 19:29:39 GMT References: <409@bria> <13252@lanl.gov> <1652@hpwala.wal.hp.com> <43615@cos.com> Sender: nobody@arc.ab.ca (Absolutely Nobody) Organization: Alberta Research Council, Calgary Alberta, Canada Lines: 53 In-Reply-To: fetter@cos.com's message of 11 Feb 91 20:58:55 GMT In article <43615@cos.com> fetter@cos.com (Bob Fetter) writes: > Well, the issue of reconnection to disconnected processes is still a > good one (IMHO). > > ... > > On Multics, it was possible to set a process attribute > "reconnect_ok", which would mark a process as one to be preserved if a > line disconnect occurred. Now, this preservation would *not* keep the > association of the communication line <--> process, but would mark the > process as 'disconnected', placing it in a suspended state *and > freeing the communication line for other use*. > > If the user logged back on the system within a site-configurable > period of time, then *after* the UserId/Password validation, they > would be told that there were (N) disconnected processes (if there > were any) and be given the option to reconnect, start a new login > process (not affecting the disconnected one(s)), etc. > BTW - after the site-selected time was reached for a disconnected > process, it would be reaped, freeing up whatever resources was being > used (memory, etc). > > ... > > This above senario removes the security aspect, as the user must > be re-established (userid/password) *prior* to any reconnection being > allowed. > > Is there anything like this in the Unix world today? I would guess > that there would be a need to collectively tie together all processes > which were children of the initial login 'process' and treat them as a > 'group', so that reassociation of them as a unit to a new /dev/tty > could be accomplished. Or is this something currently deemed "not a > good thing" by the community? > > -Bob- I don't know about Unix, but it has been in VMS for some time. Works rather nicely. You know, Bob, it's a bit amusing, the number of "OS experts" who pompously debate their preconcieved versions of techniques (like shells that know command syntax) without bothering to see how it's already done on (gasp) non-Unix OSes. /kenw -- /kenw Ken Wallewein A L B E R T A kenw@noah.arc.ab.ca R E S E A R C H (403)297-2660 C O U N C I L