From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person ) Subject: Re: Background processes not dying on parent exit Date: 6 Sep 1992 11:21:06 GMT
In article <1992Aug31.071515.24296@klaava.Helsinki.FI> wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>hammond@kwhpc.caseng.com writes:
>>Is the shell responsible for killing the background processes, or, since the
>>shell is the parent of them and has been terminated, shouldn't the OS kill
>>the processes automatically?
>
>No, to both questions.
Why is it done this way? This is kinda sloppy. I know that
somethimes unix will forget to kill one of my processes, but it
doesn't seem to happen very often. Why would linux be designed this
way?
I think that all processes that aren't specifically nohup'ed should
have to die when their parents die.
-- Brett Person Guest Account North Dakota State University person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to loose"