Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!riacs!julian
From: julian@riacs.edu (Julian E. Gomez)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac II (really SE: A letdown?)
Message-ID: <410@hydra.riacs.edu>
Date: Thu, 19-Mar-87 14:14:55 EST
Article-I.D.: hydra.410
Posted: Thu Mar 19 14:14:55 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 05:44:39 EST
References: <2834@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: julian@hydra.riacs.edu.UUCP (Julian E. Gomez)
Organization: RIACS, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 29

In article <2834@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> defron@tart6.BERKELEY.EDU (Daniel Efron) writes:
> Look, job control is not something that is specific to versions of UNIX, but
> rather which terminal driver you are using.  BSD has both the 'old' and the
> 'new' terminal drivers.  The 'new' terminal driver was added to provide 
> hooks for csh to do job control.
> 
> It is very possible for Sys V shells to have job control.  Ksh is a prime
> example.  I believe A/UX comes with sh, csh and ksh.
> ...

I'm not familiar with ksh, but jobs control requires kernel modifications.
Jobs control includes the signals
	SIGSTOP
	SIGTSTP
	SIGCONT
	SIGTTIN
	SIGTTOU
and signals done within a program are never seen by a shell.

This debate could go on and on. I've seen various messages saying that
the Mac II Unix implementation contains all of the good stuff from
Berkley, many of them from people with Mac IIs.  Would somebody
official care to comment?

-- 
"If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?"

	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	julian@riacs.edu || {...decvax!}ames!riacs!julian