From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <3D36CA0C.E29E8FBE@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Subject: Re: [9fans] no job control; thank you! Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:21:17 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d008db5a-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 "rob pike, esq." wrote: > I never liked job control; it seemed like the wrong answer to the > problem of managing multiple processes. "Job control" a la csh is certainly messy; we added job control to the BRL Bourne shell and while I leave it enabled, I almost never use it, while I do use multiple windows.. However, they're not really the same thing. Suppose you start some long-running task but soon realize that it's going to run out of disk space. It is very useful to be able to temporarily stop the task, rearrange files on the disks to make room, then resume the task. Some form of control over an executing process is required for such things. Systems like TOPS-10 had a nifty feature whereby one could start a job on one terminal, detach the terminal, and log in elsewhere and reconnect to the detached job. Not "job control", but in the same vein.