OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/17652/Learn_How_UNIX_Multitasks Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:55:38 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Back to basics http://osnews.com/thread?228936 http://osnews.com/thread?228936 Not a bad little summary from IBM. I liked the pretty graphics + CLI examples. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anomie) Comments Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?228937 http://osnews.com/thread?228937 This is not a bad story. But it's also not that interesting, it's basic stuff, yet it is everywhere. I wonder how can a story like this end up gaining so much attention in most tech sites.

Is ibm paying "news" sites to run this? Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JohnX) Comments RE: Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?228939 http://osnews.com/thread?228939 Is ibm paying "news" sites to run this?

LOL. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twenex) Comments Hey http://osnews.com/thread?228940 http://osnews.com/thread?228940 how about a torrent link, please Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SmellySnatch) Comments RE[2]: Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?228946 http://osnews.com/thread?228946 No, its because most of current "system administrators" doesn't know even this basic stuff. And these IBM articles are quite well done sometimes, worth read even if you already knows about it, so you can "refresh" your memory. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (CapEnt) Comments RE: Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?228947 http://osnews.com/thread?228947 That's a legitimate question. Still, I'd rather read this than another ubuntu beta announcement.

Surely some readers will learn a thing or two from this. (?) Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anomie) Comments fg http://osnews.com/thread?228950 http://osnews.com/thread?228950 nice intro for newbies, but their forgot about fg in the end of the article, to bring back background process to front. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vermaden) Comments RE: fg http://osnews.com/thread?228952 http://osnews.com/thread?228952 Perhaps you should read the article again... Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BSDfan) Comments UNIX (R) (*) ? http://osnews.com/thread?228954 http://osnews.com/thread?228954 Is it safe to say UNIX(R) (*) these days without getting sued? :-)

(c) Copyright dimosd(tm) 2007. All rights reserved.
(*) All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dimosd) Comments RE: Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?228957 http://osnews.com/thread?228957 Of course they are paying us. The money for my Aston Martin has to come from somewhere. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?228958 http://osnews.com/thread?228958
Of course they are paying us. The money for my Aston Martin has to come from somewhere.


And I get $100 per comment I post. Doesn't everybody? Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fretinator) Comments RE[2]: fg http://osnews.com/thread?228966 http://osnews.com/thread?228966 Yes, You are right, I must overlooked it. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vermaden) Comments RE: fg http://osnews.com/thread?229003 http://osnews.com/thread?229003 I saw a 'fg %8' somewhere in the article.
What I miss in unix shell jobs control is the ability to interupt a process with ctrl+z, and then completely detach the process from it's parent process, the shell, à la nohup..
Because screen isn't installed everywhere...
Anyway, fg/bg are still very convenient, and Unix just rocks... Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (what) Comments RE[2]: fg http://osnews.com/thread?229026 http://osnews.com/thread?229026 "What I miss in unix shell jobs control is the ability to interupt a process with ctrl+z, and then completely detach the process from it's parent process, the shell, à la nohup.."

Maybe the detach auxilliary program will be your friend. I have detach-1.3 installed (/usr/local/bin/detach) which allows to start a process detached from a controlling terminal / login shell.

% detach [ command args ]

"Anyway, fg/bg are still very convenient, and Unix just rocks..."

Yes, I know it does, and it will continue doing it. :-) Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Doc Pain) Comments kill? http://osnews.com/thread?229128 http://osnews.com/thread?229128 > One special signal, SIGKILL, can't be blocked or caught, and it kills a
> process immediately.

... and of course, pigs can fly. As with all "unblockable" actions, there is some way to block it. For example, in Linux, it's called 'D' process state (visible in ps, expected to be short for "dammit!") and means that even a kill -9 as root won't terminate the process.

I wonder if there's again some way to override *that* so you don't have to reboot... Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Morin) Comments RE: kill? http://osnews.com/thread?229203 http://osnews.com/thread?229203 "For example, in Linux, it's called 'D' process state (visible in ps, expected to be short for "dammit!") and means that even a kill -9 as root won't terminate the process."

Once I had Opera running, I encountered this problem, as well as with a XMMS from a cancelled X session (Ctrl-Alt-Bksp) or something similar unusual, which could not be killed via "kill -9 (PID)" or "killall -KILL (name)".

FreeBSD's ps knows the dammit D processes, described as follows: "D: Marks a process in disk (or other short term, uninterruptible) wait." Wow...

"I wonder if there's again some way to override *that* so you don't have to reboot..."

I'd really like to know it, maybe "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/mem" will work. :-) Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Doc Pain) Comments RE[3]: Hmm http://osnews.com/thread?229216 http://osnews.com/thread?229216 you only get $100.

bwahahahahaha. Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments