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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
