Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!munnari!kre
From: kre@munnari.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: System V job control idea
Message-ID: <1662@munnari.oz>
Date: Fri, 29-May-87 17:31:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: munnari.1662
Posted: Fri May 29 17:31:22 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 30-May-87 11:21:32 EDT
References: <337@tdi2.UUCP> <757@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <165@elan.UUCP> <434@its63b.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 24
Summary: You can't implement job control with sxt's

In article <434@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, xsimon@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Simon Brown) writes:
> Well, getting sxt's isn't really *skipping* job control as such, its just
> an alternative (to signals) way of implementing it.

No its not.  What you can do with sxt's is implement poor mans
windows.  You can't implement job control.  You can use job
control to implement poor mans windows too, which is what csh
does, and because of that a lot of people equate job contol
and poor mans windows.

If you have job control, a suitably authorised user (ie: root)
can pick a random process and stop it, to be continued later.

I do this from time to time when we're suffering from excessive
paging, or some such .. just find a big process, and stop it.
After the load diminishes, it can be continued without realizing
it was ever touched.  if it happened to be interactive, then
the user just gets a "stopped" message, probably continues it
immediately, and I go pick on someone else...

This is job control, please don't confuse one application of
job control for the real thing.

kre