Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!rit!ultb!lmb7421
From: lmb7421@ultb.UUCP (L.M. Barstow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Multitasking thought
Message-ID: <667@ultb.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 89 18:16:05 GMT
References: <8904111703.AA11699@obsolete.UUCP>
Reply-To: lmb7421@ultb.UUCP (L.M. Barstow (674SPS))
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Information Systems
Lines: 31

In article <8904111703.AA11699@obsolete.UUCP> m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) writes:
>
>   We all ready have a UNIX
>   like operating system.  Ok, not quite but from the point of the call
>   interface it's close enough for our comparason.
If you sit back and take a look at the GS toolbox and operating system,
you start to wonder just how many software poeple at Apple were thinking
multi-tasking computer....come on, now...The GS is, if anything,
interrupt-bound.
>   What most of the people here are looking for is a SHELL
>   that will allow them to do the multitasking.
>   ...we may not get a system that
>   can run all of our old software as we'd like it to.  What we may have to
>   do for to establish this kind of thing is create a C Shell type interface
>   (Apple C Shell?  ASH?) that uses new utilites, all written to adhere to
>   the new rules.
How about this...a shell which multi-tasks, based on the (argv,argc)
call procedure (probably the easiest way I can think of to call a
procedure, and, for kicks, it provides a simple interface with MANY C
routines).  To boot, if someone out there can tell me how to tell the
difference between executables written for different shells, (auxtype?)
you could add in a feature which, when handed an executable from a
different shell, passed the correct values to the executable, thereby
allowing compatability with different executables...
><< MCT >>

-- 
Les Barstow     LMB7421@RITVAX.BITNET
...rutgers!rochester!ritcv!ultb!lmb7421.UUCP
"I know you think you know what you thought I said, but
you don't realize that what you thought I said was not what I meant"