Job control

[Oleg Kiselev]

In article <7145 at portia.Stanford.EDU> karish at forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes:
>>You misunderstood.  I commented on AIX PS/2 being very much BSD-like both on
>>the user interface level and on the library services level and on the system
>>call level (unless POSIX compliance required a change).  RT AIX which I had
>>used did not offer the BSD feel at least on the user level.
>This isn't what you said the other day.  You said that AIX-PS/2 was becomming
>more RT-like, and that you didn't like it.

AIX-PS/2 has been made to behave like RT AIX in many, many ways.  I disagree
with the design standards and the very concept of a number of RT tools and I
am not thrilled about PS/2 AIX being made compatible with RT on that level. 
I do not recall if this was even mentioned in the same article, but it
definitely was not mentioned in the same thought-thread, which dealt with 
RT's and PS2's BSD-feel as is exemplified by process/job control.

>POSIX 1003.1 compliance involves supporting a BSD-like signalling
>mechanism, a SysV-like terminal IO subsystem, and a number of
>special-purpose functions instead of ioctls with varying numbers and
>types of arguments, which were difficult or impossible to rationalize
>with ANSI C.

That's been done in AIX/370.  The compilers (386 and 370) support ANSI C, but
the system was written in the "standard" K&R C, just like sVr2 and BSD 4.3.
-- 
			"No regrets, no apologies"   Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev            ARPA: lcc.oleg at seas.ucla.edu, oleg at gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230           UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg