Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: job control
Message-ID: <6238@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Nov-86 10:24:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.6238
Posted: Wed Nov  5 10:24:17 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 22:22:02 EST
References: <6176@ut-sally.UUCP> <6014@ut-sally.UUCP> <6001@ut-sally.UUCP> <5965@ut-sally.UUCP> <5932@ut-sally.UUCP> <5991@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: IEEE P1003 Portable Operating System for Computer Environments Committee
Lines: 31
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu

From: seismo!hadron!jsdy@sally.utexas.edu (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 22:47:30 est
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA

In article <6176@ut-sally.UUCP> you write:
>From: seismo!mcvax!jack
>Organization: AMOEBA project, CWI, Amsterdam
>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 23:39:03 +0100
>
>*CURRENT JOB CONTROL IMPLEMENTATIONS ARE HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE! 
>HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!*
>Both solutions are filled with horrible tricks like closing
>tty's and re-opening them and then doing funny ioctl()s and the closing
>them again and then reopening then and then...
>It is of course a praiseworthy feat that the folks at HP managed to
>sqeeze those two horrible, inconsistent, unintellegible mechanisms
>into one poor kernel, but I'm afraid the result is horrible**2.
>>From now on, you can find me in the "job control is horrible" camp.

Jack, one gets the vague feeling you dislike these implementations,
without the least notion why.  Could you please meditate, or take a
pill, or whatever soothes you, and then tell us exactly why you feel
this way?  (You may wish to take frequent mellow breaks.)  Perhaps
you could also tell us what you feel defines a non-horrible job
control implementation.  Thank you!
-- 

	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
			jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)

Volume-Number: Volume 8, Number 41