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: <1989Jun10.063315.26085@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> <1989Jun8.172420.27288@utzoo.uucp> <7652@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 06:33:15 GMT

In article <7652@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>1.   Job control versus multiple windows is a false dichotomy.

Please elaborate; looks like a real one to me.

>2.   Each and every program does not need special code to deal with
>     job control.  Only programs that change terminal settings,
>     and privileged programs that should not be interrupted by
>     unprivileged users, need such code.

And any program for which there is any likelihood that its output might
have to be redrawn.  That is, every program.

>3.   Multiple windows are useless at 1200 bps.

Then don't put more than one on the screen at a time.  The others are still
accessible if needed.

>4.   Multiple windows are useless on a hardcopy terminal.

True.  How many people work on hardcopy terminals?

>The best solution is to allow multiple windows, and job control within
>each...

Why provide two ways of doing the same thing?  See Ken Thompson in the
original Unix papers on the virtues of doing things only one way.
-- 
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