Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: job control is a bug, not a feature
Message-ID: <1989Jun10.063047.26030@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <16497@louie.udel.EDU> <11989@bcsaic.UUCP> <2775@munnari.oz> <798@gara.une.oz> <8167@boring.cwi.nl> <1989Jun7.224933.700@utzoo.uucp> <17958@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 06:30:47 GMT

In article <17958@mimsy.UUCP> jds@mimsy.umd.edu (James da Silva) writes:
>Interesting.  I often find myself using job control to stop a process
>without killing it.  Or doing simple things like putting ftp,
>compress, or rm into the background when they are taking longer than
>expected.  How does your alternative handle things like these?  Do I
>have to explicitly run each command in a separate window?

No, just shift to a fresh window when -- and only when -- the one you're
running in is taking too long to finish.

>Granted.  Do you need a fast terminal?  How do I do windows at 2400
>baud without spending all my time redrawing the screen, or dividing
>its 25x80 chars into tiny `windows'?

At low speeds, typically the best way to organize windows is to make them
the size of the screen and have only one showing at a time.  There is no
need for screen redrawing to involve any more characters than sending
stuff to the screen in the ordinary way, unless the window manager is
stupid.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu