From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) Subject: Re: Background processes not dying on parent exit Date: 6 Sep 1992 22:51:38 GMT
I said that children shouldn't be killed when their parent dies.
person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person ) asks in reply:
>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?
As far as I am aware, no Unix kills children when the parent dies. I
see no reason why processes should be killed for arbitrary reasons like
some other process dying.
Also, do you think that the following should work:
#!/bin/sh
(sleep 10; echo 10) &
(sleep 5; echo 5) &
A similar thing happens with some program, e.g. some mailers leave a
background child process behind to do the real work, so that the user
doesn't need to wait as long for a prompt. Should this be impossible?
Note that doing nohup isn't the answer: it could still be a good idea
for some leftover child processes of this kind to be killed on hangup.