Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!epiwrl!epimass!jbuck
From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: SVR3.0 vs BSD4.3
Message-ID: <2038@epimass.EPI.COM>
Date: 25 Mar 88 18:24:00 GMT
References: <12414@brl-adm.ARPA> <4361@megaron.arizona.edu> <7499@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7514@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2050@munnari.oz> <7542@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 22

In article <2050@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes:
>>But that's not job control.  Job control is when I notice that /foobar
>>is 98% full, and some cretin has a job running that's half way through
>>extracting 160Mb from a tar tape .. "kill -STOP <pid>" is job control.

In article <7542@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>Most 4BSD job control seems to be done by typing ^Z, "fg", "bg", etc.
>Running under "shl", there is a keyboard-generated signal similar to
>TSTP and analogs of fg, bg, etc.  That is why I said that "shl" is
>the AT&T UNIX equivalent of 4BSD job control.  As both of us have
>said, each approach has advantages and disadvantages w.r.t. the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Doug, but I thought in shl you can't stop a
process that isn't producing terminal output, so in Robert's example
you'd have no hope of stopping the tar job except by killing it.
.
.
.
.
-- 
- Joe Buck  {uunet,ucbvax,sun,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
	    Old Internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net