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: <6301@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 91 15:55:50 GMT
References: <1991Mar30.202637.8629@kithrup.COM> <1991Mar30.012025.28876@kithrup.COM> <25262@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown)
Lines: 26

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> jb107@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Burns) writes:
> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) says:
> >[Barry Shein asks if anyone has implemented POSIX job control]
> >> Yes.  SCO.  kithrup (this machine) in an example of how it works.  It has
> >> its problems, I will admit, but it works.
> >Like what?
>[numerous commands that close up on signals] 
> vi used to not work with job control.  However, there is an SLS available
> that fixes it (which I didn't know about, and that SLS got installed on a
> machine at work, and I got very confused 8-)).

Essentially, the problem is that to *fully* implement POSIX-style job control,
you have to convert commands such as vi and csh that look for BSD-specific
things.

csh, in particular, will develop a pipe race condition if a detailed conversion
isn't done to POSIX line-discipline setup.

Yeah, this is a gripe, but after the conversion is done, it works without
the hitches Sean describes....

Mark Brown    IBM PSP Austin, TX.     (512) 823-3741   VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ
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.