On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +1000, Matt Hansen wrote: > 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 I don't think so, but as I stated "xclock &" will get killed when you exit the xterm. jay
