Progrress: controller program.

Progrress: controller program.

This gets the program back into a semi-working state.
I've tested the threading and the previous threading problems appear to be gone.
That tells me this massive rewrite/redesign seems to have been worth it.

There is still a lot more to do:
1) Something is not being shutdown properly, on exit (using the control-c termination signal with -t passed to it).
2) The simulate parameters are no longer working (oops!).
3) The printing appears done, but I've confirmed some problems due to design*.
4) I have not done extensive tests, so there may be other regressions.

* As for the case of #3, the problem is with printf() (and fprintf()) and threading:
- The child processes will write to stdout and stderr.
- The controller program also writes to stdout and stderr.
- printf() and fprintf() guarantee locking, but this doesn't help between different executions.
- Writing one massive complete fprintf with, say 20 parameters, is ridiculous.

This leads me to believe the best solution is to write my own printf/fprintf replacement...which is a huge task.
If I do this, then I can get rid of all of that print locking and use the locking provided by the custom functions.
The difference being that these locks would be designated by another, special function, so that the locks can be held across function calls.
The other advantage would be being able to add support for many of the specialized FLL structures (particularly color printing).
The downside is I would need to do a lot of research in witing to the terminal (the putc() and similar stdio functions) and bufferring.
I would then have to handle all of this!
Which is a huge amount of work.
So, for the time being #3 will be ignored and left as a design flaw (or more accurately a design limitation).