From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Oct 15 09:00:02 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id JAA29909
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:00:02 -0700
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [198.137.146.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA29874
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:59:55 -0700
Received: from LOCALHOST (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA07849; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:58:54 -0600
Message-Id: <199510151558.JAA07849@rover.village.org>
To: "Gasparovski / Daniel (ISE)" <u923168@student.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: Re: IPX now available 
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:09:22 +1000
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:58:54 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

: Why can't this be done in the shell?

It could, but pty's are "rare" on most systems (rarely than pipes at
least).

: eg: have the shell fork off the process, give it a pty as controlling 
: terminal which will be handled by the shell, and by default show it's 
: output on the user's tty.  Then, if a "bg >& make.out" is given, have the 
: shell open make.out and start writing the output there instead of the tty.
: 
: It's not the most ideal solution, for example "ls" won't do the right 
: thing, but it's good enough for most, if not all, situations.

Since ls would be connected to a pty, it would produce the right
output, no?

I like this idea, but can't deside if it is too gross or not...

Warner