Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!awdprime!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown From: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: POSIX bashing Message-ID: <6300@awdprime.UUCP> Date: 1 Apr 91 15:50:28 GMT References: <3419@unisoft.UUCP> <5980071@hpfcdc.HP.COM> <3446@unisoft.UUCP> Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP Reply-To: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) Lines: 23 (Barry Shein) writes: |From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) |>People who were not involved should not presume to know what the |>arguments were. In fact, the 4.2BSD job control hack was a horrible |>abomination with a large number of technical problems. POSIX.1 had |>to reengineer it just to address most of the security and other |>substantive issues. It is still widely felt that the job control |>hack is one of the most inelegant parts of any UNIX variant that |>has it. Certainly there have been much better designs for facilities |>that render the BSD-style hack unnecessary. | | Has anyone implemented this design-by-committee? Does it actually work | (other than in theory)? Is it performant? Is it useful? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. In fact, I've seen it running on a few different OSs, ranging from AIX to BSD-variants to MACH-variants. Blind fear doesn't look good on you..... Mark Brown MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.