system() does not work

system() does not work

Post by Eric Dav » Sat, 30 Apr 1994 22:15:55




|> |> Hi All,
|> |>
|> |> I have an X-Windows/Motif program that uses the system() function.
|> |> Well, at least it tries to use the system() function.
|> |>
|> |> This is what the system() function causes to print out in the xterm:
|> |> X^9^?^: is not an identifier
|> |>
|>
|> You should *really* give more specifics as to the system (i.e. operating
|> system and platform) you're working on, and then ask this question in
|> a more specific newsgroup, because chances are it has nothing to do with
|> the fact that you're writing an X app.  We can't really help you from
|> the information you gave.  Try comp.unix.programmer maybe?
|>
|>
|> good luck,
|> ---------------------------
|> Jeremy Payne
|> UIUC Neuroscience program /
|> College of Medicine

|> (217)244-4478
|> ---------------------------

The system I'm working on is an Intergraph CLIX workstation.  I have asked
this question there, but few programs visit that group, hence a post
here.

The other reason I posted here is because I understand the X-Windows
environment does not like fork(), since the system() function forks to
create child process that in turn executes /bin/sh in order to execute
the command string.  I thought this might be a problem.  

Thankx for any help,

Eric

 
 
 

1. Win 95 does not have DOS!-Disk Operating System

Ofcourse Windows have a DiskOperatingSystem build in. Just as most
operating systems have. That is however not what is discussed in this
thread. What is being debated in this thread is wether Windows 95
have good old 16 bit MS-DOS as one of the pillars that it is resting
on? If so, it is more voulnerable than if it is doesn't due to the
fact that DOS as such is not very well protected.

I don't know why MS-idiots come up with this claim all the time that
DOS is gone from Windows 95 though. It isn't.

There is a vital difference in the way Windows 95 is connected to
MS-DOS compared to other operating systems. OS/2 and Linux can be
"booted" from DOS, and seem to have the same dependance on DOS as
Win95 has. This is not the case. Windows 95 *cannot* be booted
unless there is MS-DOS on the computer, while the other two can.
DOS may or may not be loaded at runtime for these OS's if they
want to run DOS apps. It usually is not loaded at all however.

Now NetWare also *needs* MS-DOS on the computer to start, so is
NW dependant on MS-DOS? No, not really. NetWare doesn't *use*
MS-DOS for anything once it has started.

With Windows 95 the story is somewhat different. When Win95 starts,
it takes over most of the tasks of DOS, but not all. There are still
some things Windows 95 will have to rely on DOS to do. This is the
case wether you run only 16 bits apps, only 32 bit apps, or both.
Win95 needs a 16 bit real mode PSP for every running task on the
system. MS-DOS (16 bit real mode) creates this PSP. There are also
vital structures of the operating system that is stored in lower
(MS-DOS) memory. This part of memory is writeable for any application,
and an errant application can therefore crash Windows 95 badly.

I guess it is the old MS-DOS ghost combined with the Win16 ghost that
- in addition - makes Win95 stop multitasking properly once a 16 bit
Windows app is running.

---Terje

2. Apache-1.3 server-parsed warning?

3. ipchains : ftp does not work from dos prompt

4. Does Unix come in more flavors than ice cream?

5. forwarding ippp-eth0 dos not work

6. Maxtor/Linux partitioning

7. mformat dos not work

8. MIME type for Autodesk Animator (FLC) file?

9. SCSI works in DOS, not Linux

10. Serial works under Dos, not Linux

11. Partitioning does not work on extended DOS-Partition

12. lerdir does not seem to work with Redhat 5.1 and the free dos

13. help ppp dos not work