🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8702131404.AA03521@mcrware.UUCP> jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes:
>The earlier mention was right; a OS-9 process's data memory does not get
>moved.  (Of course, 99.9+% of programs under Unix that use fork() read
>
>	if (fork() == /* whatever says I'm the child */)
>		exec[a-z]*("what I really wanted to run", ...);
>
>so I don't think that OS-9's at any great loss for not having Unix's
>fork().)
>
>		James Jones

I'll agree that most calls to fork() are followed soon after by an
execve(), but not immediately.  Files might be closed or opened,
priorities changed, and various other things might happen before the
new program is loaded.

And this still doesn't address the small minority of programs that
DON'T execve() after a fork().  For example, the shell -- when it runs
a loop in a subshell, it of course doesn't re-load itself.  It just
calls fork() and the child runs the loop (after redirecting any
files).

I think that lack of a real Unix fork() is THE great loss of OS9.
(Along with lesser things like one-ended pipes, no signal queue, no
in-core inode table for text sharing, ...)  For a CoCo, OS9 is a big
step up.  For a 68000 system, however, I want real software.

-- 
Mike McNally, mercifully employed at Digital Lynx ---
    Where Plano Road the Mighty Flood of Forest Lane doth meet,
    And Garland fair, whose perfumed air flows soft about my feet...
uucp: {texsun,killer,infotel}!pollux!bobkat!m5d (214) 238-7474