Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!benoni
From: benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Apollo DOMAIN/IX csh question - job control
Message-ID: <2133@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jul 88 00:27:46 GMT
References: <8807291748.AA01877@a.cc.umich.edu>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 24

in article <8807291748.AA01877@a.cc.umich.edu>, rees@MAILGW.CC.UMICH.EDU (Jim Rees) says:
- 
- 
-     I don't know how Apollo implemented it, but on a real UNIX system
-     there should be no difference in job execution caused by whether
-     your shell is supporting job control or not.
- 
- That's because "real" Unix isn't advanced enough to let you run a
- program without spawning a whole new process to run it in.  Instead,
- it relies on total crocks like vfork() to speed up process creation.
- 
- Let's not start a flame war, OK?

Yeah AND real Unix supports process protection unlike Apollo (again pick
any pre-SR10) Unix...i.e. if i am anybody i can kill a root process anywhere
on my Apollo network...incidentally it would be interesting to know if
Apollo's job execution and process protection change with SR10.  Hopefully
Apollo Unix will become "advanced" enough to protect processes in the same
way they faithfully protect files. :-)

SR10 will hopefully correct some of the deficiencies that Apollo I'm sure
is tired of hearing about. 
------------------------
My Opinions are my own.