kill xterm kills app!

[Matt Hansen]

On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 14:11, Chris wrote:
> Hi Jay,
> 
> On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 23:57 US/Eastern, Jay Daniels wrote:
> 
> >> If you start it with the ampersand and later want to close the xterm 
> >> but
> >> keep the other app (xclock) going, you can use 'disown' to do the same
> >> thing that 'nohup' does when starting it as mentioned in earlier 
> >> posts.
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> $ xclock &
> >> $ disown xclock
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > Why does xclock become a child of the xterm process if you use the
> > ampersand and run it in the background?
> >
> 
> xclock actually becomes a child process of the shell (bash, usually). 
> When you start it with nohup, it becomes a child of the init process 
> (usually PID 1) after the 'real' parent (the shell) dies.

Is there any functional difference between say 'nohup xclock &' and 
'xclock & ; disown xclock' apart from the latter involves more typing?

Regards,
-Matt
-- 
"Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?"
 - Bob Young on the benefits of the open source development model.
mhelios - www.fedoraforum.org 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040429/d9a71441/attachment-0001.sig>